VA’ERA_EXODUS VI:2-IX:35

Through a series of Otot umoftim, “signs and miracles”, usually referred to as plagues, God delivered the Hebrew people from Egypt. Each of these plagues was meant to demonstrate God’s superiority over idolatrous worship. Starting with the Nile River, which was worshipped by the Egyptians, who were aware that their agricultural production depended on this source of water. And also continuing with the animals that were deified as well, the plagues proved that there was a supreme force, the God of the Hebrews, who was also the One God who ruled the destiny of the Egyptians and the universe created by Him.

These events could not be explained as natural phenomena because the Hebrew population did not suffer the same ravages. The pests had selective recipients. The severest plague, no doubt, was the last: the death of the firstborn, which convinced Pharaoh to finally allow the Exodus of the Hebrew people. In this case, the firstborn Hebrews were absolved of death, but only those who had the audacity to sacrifice a lamb and paint with its blood the lintels of their homes.

In this way, they identified themselves before God so that the angel of death would pass over their homes and demonstrated their courage before the Egyptians. Not all the Hebrews took risks, and indeed, those who did not paint the thresholds of their homes with the blood of the Paschal sacrifice perished, as did the Egyptian firstborn.

Some biblical commentators divide the first 9 plagues, which did not achieve the desired goal, into three groups of 3 plagues each. According to their nature, pests can be grouped into pairs. Some plagues attacked the beasts of the field, blood and frogs emerged from the Nile. Plague and rashes are diseases, hail and locusts destroyed agriculture, plagues of darkness and the firstborn are related to death.

According to the Midrash, the infamous Hebrews perished during the plague of darkness so that the Egyptians would not witness their punishment. The decisive plague was the death of the firstborn, which included the home of Pharaoh. Only in this last plague did the Hebrews have a stake, placing the blood of the Paschal sacrifice on their thresholds. To leave Egypt and not return later, the Hebrews had to prove to the Egyptians and to themselves that they had lost their fear of their enslavers by sacrificing one of their gods: the sheep.

Although the worship of God formally began with the revelation at Mount Sinai, when the Hebrews received the Ten Commandments, its origin lies in Egypt. The offering of the Paschal sacrifice is the first Mitsvah the Hebrews fulfilled. Therefore, the great commentator Rashi questions why the Bible did not begin with the chapter that refers to this Mitsvah since the Torah is all about the instructive rituals and morals that should govern the people.

While Mosheh and Aharon produced the miracles that resulted in the 10 Makot, “plagues”, that served to convince Pharaoh, Egyptian sorcerers, and magicians to duplicate these feats. In such a way that Gåod’s “strong hand” was not apparent. ¿What was the difference between the miracles produced by Mosheh and Aharon and the sorcery of the Egyptian magicians?

Rabbi Yaacov Kaminetzky believes that for it to have moral validity, Pharaoh’s decision would have to be the result of his free will. Therefore, God allowed the Egyptian magi to imitate the results obtained by Mosheh and Aharon. In this way, Pharaoh would not act because he was facing an invincible power but allowed, or perhaps expelled the Hebrews from Egypt, because he finally recognized the existence of the One and Only åGod for all peoples.

SHEMOT_EXODUS I:1-VI:1

Yaacov and his sons have passed away. The Galut, the exile of the Jewish people begins. While a member of Yaacov’s immediate family was alive, there was a palpable link to the Land of Israel and the stay in Egypt took on a passing character. With the death of Yaacov’s sons, the strong attachment with the ancestral land is lost and residence in Egypt acquires permanence. The descendants begin to integrate into the Egyptian environment and culture, and according to the Midrash, they abandon the practice of circumcision, which distinguished the descendants of the patriarch Avraham.

After Yosef’s death, the Egyptians question his relationship with the Hebrews. Pharaoh gathers his advisors to ask for their advice: What should be done with them? The fact is that the Egyptians had become slaves of the state because Yosef had given them the seeds necessary to sow their fields and as payment, the peasants became the servants of Pharaoh, to whom they had to deliver twenty percent of their labor.

The Hebrews, however, remained as an independent group within the State, a group that in some future date, could ally itself with any invader that would come to overthrow the regime. According to the Midrash, Pharaoh met with three advisors:  Bileam, Iyov, and Yitro, and asked them: did Egypt owe a permanent debt to Yosef’s descendants?  It had been the consequence of Yosef’s policies which consisted in storing the overproduction of the years of plenty, that enabled Egypt to become the first power of the known world at that time. Now that Yosef had passed, was there still a relevant issue of gratitude to his descendants, to the Hebrews?

Bileam, jealous of the Hebrews for their ties with God, since he had promised the patriarchs that he would make them a great people, demonstrated again his antipathy for this people and opined that they represented a danger to the stability of Egypt and, therefore, it was necessary to end their independence and stop their growth. Despite his prophetic abilities, which some commentators equate to those of Moses, Bileam opined that Egyptian gratitude should be limited to the person, to the individual Yosef. His descendants did not necessarily need to enjoy the effect of the well-being that Yosef had brought to Egypt.

Although Iyov is described by the Bible as a whole and correct person, God-fearing, he was unwilling to go beyond what was strictly required in his conception of justice. Judaism preaches the notion of Lifnim mishurat hadin, the goodness of living according to an ample spirit of justice and not necessarily abiding only the strict letter of the Law. Judaism teaches that there are circumstances and cases in which the help offered should not be measured. For example, the honor that is dispensed to parents has no limit, nor the help that is offered to a poor person. Iyov remained silent in the face of Pharaoh’s question. By not responding, he avoided allying himself with Bileam, but he also did not explicitly defend the Hebrews, and, in many cases, silence has a negative effect. Silence, which is not far from indifference, is usually very painful for the affected. This is expressed by many survivors of the Holocaust of the past century.

Yitro disagreed with Bileam and, while thinking he was in the minority, decided to leave the meeting. Yitro took the risk of becoming a minority of one and thereby demonstrated the traits of an even-tempered personality, who would later become Moses’ father-in-law. Although Yitro did not identify with Bileam’s position, on the other hand, he was also not convincing enough to change the course of the conversation, which concluded in a series of decrees whose purpose was to weaken the Hebrews morally and materially, including the cruel order to throw newborn males into the Nile.

Eventually, the Hebrews were enslaved and had to perform the most arduous physical tasks, the basic purpose of which was to break their sense of self-worth and pride and nullify any aspiration for freedom. As in many other cases, effective leadership was required to break the chains of slavery. Moses is chosen by God for a double task: to convince Pharaoh to allow the Hebrews to leave and, at the same time, to carry out an equally difficult task: convince the Hebrews that freedom is one of the most important values for preserving the dignity of the human being.

SHEMOT_ÉXODO I:1-VI:1

Yaacov y sus hijos han fallecido. Comienza entonces el Galut, el exilio del pueblo judío. Mientras vivía un miembro de la familia inmediata de Yaacov, existía un nexo palpable con la Tierra de Israel y la estadía en Egipto adquiría un carácter pasajero. Con la muerte de los hijos de Yaacov se pierde el vínculo con la tierra ancestral y la residencia en Egipto adquiere permanencia. Los descendientes empiezan a integrarse al ambiente y a la cultura egipcia, y según el Midrash, abandonan la práctica de la circuncisión, que distinguía a los descendientes del patriarca Avraham.

Después de la muerte de Yosef, los egipcios cuestionan su relación con los hebreos. El Faraón reúne a sus consejeros para plantearles qué se debe hacer con ellos. El caso es que los egipcios se habían convertido en esclavos del Estado porque Yosef les había dado las semillas necesarias para sembrar el campo y como pago, los campesinos se limitaron a ser los siervos del Faraón, a quien tenían que entregar el veinte porciento de la producción. 

En cambio, los hebreos permanecían como un grupo independiente del Estado que, en un futuro, podría aliarse con cualquier invasor para derrocar al régimen. Según el Midrash, el Faraón se reunió con tres consejeros: Bileam, Iyov y Yitró y les planteó: ¿acaso tenía Egipto una deuda permanente con los descendientes de Yosef? Gracias a las políticas de Yosef, que consistieron en almacenar la sobreproducción de los años de abundancia, Egipto se había convertido en la primera potencia del mundo conocido de aquel entonces. Ahora que Yosef había fallecido, ¿cuál era la responsabilidad con los hebreos?

Bileam tenía celos de los hebreos por sus nexos con Dios, puesto que había prometido a los patriarcas que los convertiría en un gran pueblo, demostró nuevamente su antipatía por este pueblo y opinó que representaban un peligro para la estabilidad de Egipto y, por lo tanto, era menester poner fin a su independencia y frenar su crecimiento. A pesar de sus capacidades proféticas, que algunos comentaristas equiparan a las de Moshé, Bileam opinó que la gratitud egipcia debía limitarse a la persona de Yosef. Sus descendientes no tenían por qué gozar del efecto del bienestar que Yosef había traído a Egipto.

Aunque Iyov es descrito por la Biblia como una persona íntegra y correcta, temerosa de Dios, no estaba dispuesto a ir más allá de lo estrictamente requerido en su concepción de la justicia. El judaísmo predica la noción de Lifnim mishurat hadín, la bondad de vivir de acuerdo con el espíritu de la justicia y no atenerse necesariamente a la letra estricta de la Ley. El judaísmo enseña que hay circunstancias y casos en los cuales no se debe medir la ayuda que se ofrece. Por ejemplo: la honra que se dispensa a los padres no tiene límite, ni la ayuda que se ofrece a un pobre. Iyov mantuvo silencio antela interrogante del Faraón. Al no responder, evitó aliarse con Bileam, pero tampoco defendió explícitamente a los hebreos y, en muchos casos, el silencio tiene un efecto negativo. El silencio, que no está lejos de la indiferencia, suele ser muy doloroso para el afectado. Así lo expresan muchos sobrevivientes del Holocausto del siglo pasado.

Yitró no estuvo de acuerdo con Bileam y, pensando que estaba en la minoría, decidió abandonar la reunión. Yitró asumió el riesgo de convertirse en una minoría de uno, y con ello demostró los rasgos de una personalidad apropiada, que luego se convertirá en el suegro de Moshé. Aunque Yitró no se identificó con la posición de Bileam, por otro lado, tampoco fue lo suficientemente convincente para cambiar el rumbo de la conversación, que concluyó en una serie de decretos cuyo propósito era debilitar moral y materialmente a los hebreos, incluyendo la orden de arrojar al Nilo a los varones recién nacidos. 

Finalmente, los hebreos fueron esclavizados y tuvieron que realizar las más arduas tareas físicas, cuyo propósito básico era quebrantar su orgullo y anular cualquier aspiración de libertad. Como en otros muchos casos, se requería un liderazgo efectivo para romper las cadenas de la esclavitud. Moshé es escogido por Dios para una doble tarea: convencer al Faraón para que permita la salida de los hebreos y, al mismo tiempo, para llevar a cabo una tarea igualmente difícil: convencer a los hebreos que la libertad es uno de los valores más importantes para conservar la dignidad del ser humano.

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.

VAYEJÍ_ GÉNESIS XLVII,28 – L

Día a día el hambre se acentuaba en Egipto y sus habitantes habían gastado todos sus recursos en la compra de víveres. Para sobrevivir le vendieron a Yosef su ganado y más adelante le cedieron sus tierras, quedando como esclavos. Por lo tanto, el texto de la Hagadá reza, Avadim hayinu lefaró bemitsráyim, fuimos los esclavos del Faraón en Egipto”. No fuimos los esclavos de los egipcios, porque, a su vez, los egipcios también eran esclavos del Faraón. Yosef decreta la entrega del veinte por ciento de la producción agrícola al tesoro nacional y el resto para el sustento de las familias que siembran las tierras. El sacerdocio egipcio recibe una cuota diaria de pan y por esto les permite retener sus tierras.

El relato bíblico de nuestra lectura semanal señala que Yaacov cumple ciento cuarenta y siete años, habiendo pasado los últimos diecisiete en Egipto, y está por fallecer. Yaacov hace llamar a Yosef y le encomienda trasladar sus restos mortales a la tierra ancestral. Un culto muy importante alrededor de la muerte se había desarrollado en Egipto. Las pirámides son las extraordinarias tumbas de los potentados, donde eran enterrados con sus ropajes más finos, con comida y provisiones para el viaje hacia el Más Allá. 

Yaacov no desea identificarse con esa especulación (o teología) que coloca el énfasis en una vida ulterior. El judaísmo es una teoría para la vida, que acentúa y valora este mundo y por lo tanto constituye una perspectiva muy diferente a la egipcia. El éxodo no significa únicamente la ruptura con las cadenas de la esclavitud física. El éxodo de Egipto señala una actitud de rebeldía frente a la óptica de los habitantes de ese país y señala una vía alterna, diferente enteramente a la escala de valores allí reinantes.

En una visita a Caracas hace una década, el artista israelí Yaacov Agam argumentó que su arte era un arte judío. Frente a esa afirmación reaccione negativamente. Recordaba las enseñanzas de mi maestro, el finado Dr. Joseph Lookstein, Canciller de la Universidad Bar Ilán y profesor de Yeshiva University. Lookstein solía decir que la sociología judía no existía como tal. Porque no había nada de particularmente judío en la sociología. La sociología es una ciencia que tiene algo que decir sobre los grupos humanos de cualquier origen geográfico o particularidad étnica. Se puede hablar, en cambio, solía decir, de la sociología de los judíos, tal como, por ejemplo, se podía estudiar la sociología de los grupos hispanos, o de las colonias francesas del siglo XVIII. 

Siguiendo esta línea de argumento supuse que tampoco existía el arte, judío. Agam, sin embargo, se mantenía firme en su punto de vista insistiendo que el arte es, por lo general, estático e inmóvil. En cambio, decía, mi arte es dinámico y tiene movimiento. El judaísmo es una opción diferente frente a la cultura egipcia, continuaba Agam, porque en Egipto se adoraba y admiraba lo inmutable y lo eterno. Las pirámides son una especie de desafío frente al transcurrir de los siglos. Son una manifestación de la victoria del ser humano frente a lo efímero y temporal. La muerte representaba para el egipcio la eternidad. La vida, por ser pasajera, no era merecedora de su atención exclusiva. Únicamente lo eterno podría considerarse sagrado.

Para el judaísmo, ni el lugar ni una edificación (con las notables excepciones del Monte del Templo y del Beit HaMikdash) poseen santidad. El judaísmo santifica el tiempo, los momentos del año que tienen un significado especial, tal como los días festivos sagrados, con el Shabat a la cabeza. Mientras que en Egipto se aprecia y glorifica lo permanente, el judaísmo entroniza el cambio. El crecimiento, el desarrollo y por lo tanto la vida misma, dependen de la posibilidad de cambio y esto radica su importancia vital. Según Agam, su arte, es el arte del cambio y del movimiento. Sus obras se modifican “cambian,” dependiendo de la posición del espectador y del ángulo de visión.

Regresemos a nuestro relato bíblico y nos encontramos con Yosef, acompañado por sus dos hijos, visitando nuevamente a su anciano padre. Acompañado por sus dos hijos. Yaacov está enfermo. Es la primera vez que se menciona el estado de enfermedad en la Torá. Algunos expositores sugieren que, anteriormente, los seres humanos morían repentinamente, sin ninguna señal previa. La enfermedad, como síntoma de una muerte próxima, le otorga a la persona la oportunidad de tomar ciertas decisiones de último momento, que pueden ser de importancia trascendental. 

Yaacov no reconoce en un principio a los hijos de Yosef pero los bendice al enterarse de su identidad. (Es posible que la relación entre abuelos y nietos no estuviera aún lo suficientemente desarrollada en la sociedad humana). Una parte de la bendición de Yaacov, “Yesimjá Elohim keEfráyim vejiMenashé”, que quiere decir que “Dios te considere como a Efráyim y Menashé”, servirá de modelo para la bendición de los hijos en las generaciones futuras.

Esta vez, en su lecho de muerte, Yaacov llama a todos sus hijos y dice, “...Et asher yikrá etjem beajarit hayamim”,… lo que les acontecerá en el fin de los días”. Dado que lo que sigue es una descripción de la personalidad, o de algún acontecimiento importante en la vida de cada uno de sus hijos, y omite el “final de los días”, nuestros jajamim opinan que, en sus últimos momentos la inspiración divina abandona a Yaacov. 

En un contexto diferente, había sugerido un significado diferente al término ajarit hayamim, “el fin de los días”. Leemos en el versículo de Devarim (Números) XXXI, 29, que Moshé le dice al pueblo judío, “Ki yadati ajarei motí…, vekarat etjem haraá beajarit hayamim”; “porque sé, que después de mi muerte…, y les ocurrirá el mal en el fin de los días”. En muchas oportunidades los versículos de la Biblia establecen paralelismos. Eso quiere decir que la misma idea se expresa en la primera y en la segunda parte de una oración. Al analizar este recurso literario del paralelismo, “Ajarei motí”, “después de mi muerte,” tiene igual significado que ajarit hayamim, “el fin de los días”. Por lo tanto, sugiero que “Ajarit hayamim” no significa necesariamente, el fin de los días de la humanidad, o sea que no hace referencia a algún concepto apocalíptico. 

El significado de Ajarit hayamim puede ser simplemente el fin de los días de una persona. Por lo tanto, en nuestro relato, es muy probable que Yaacov no tuviera la intención de predecir y anticipar el desenvolvimiento del futuro de la humanidad, sino opinar acerca de cuál sería el comportamiento de su familia después de su muerte, tomando en cuenta los rasgos individuales de cada uno de sus hijos.

Considero que el concepto de la unidad familiar y el de las relaciones entre sus diversos integrantes fueron evolucionando a través del tiempo. Cuando Caín exclama, “¿acaso soy el guardián de mi hermano?” podría estar enunciando, sin ironía alguna, un hecho que consideraba natural. Caín opinaba, tal vez, que cada uno es entera y únicamente responsable por sí mismo. 

¿Cómo explicamos la celeridad y el empeño de Avraham en sacrificar a su hijo Yitsjak, sin por lo menos cuestionar la autenticidad de la orden recibida? ¿Por qué no exige que se le repita el severo y cruel mensaje? ¿No podría haber algún error en su transmisión? ¿Cómo podemos explicar que Yitsjak se dejase engañar por unas pieles que Yaacov se coloca sobre los brazos en el momento de recibir la bendición paterna? ¿Acaso Yitsjak, a pesar de su ceguera, no podía diferenciar entre sus hijos? Creo que, paso a paso, se fue desarrollando el concepto de las relaciones y el de las responsabilidades paternales y filiales. 

Yaacov es el primero de los patriarcas en conocer y reconocer individualmente el carácter y la idiosincrasia de cada uno de sus doce hijos. Así lo demuestra en su lecho de muerte al nombrarlos y amonestarlos por sus errores. Tal vez ésta, sea una razón adicional para que el pueblo judío porte el nombre de Benei Israel, los hijos de Yaacov, porque fue el primer patriarca que conoció de cerca a cada uno de sus hijos.

VAYIGASH_GENESIS XLIV,18 – XLVII,27

Yosef assumes the administrative powers of Egypt at the age of thirty and marries Osnat the daughter of Poti Fera (according to Rashi this is Potiphar himself, who undergoes gender changes because he desires Yosef). From this union, Menasheh and Ephrayim are born. During the years of abundance that Yosef predicted, the surpluses are stored and then inevitably put up for sale in the years of famine that follow.

The entire region suffers from shortages and Yaacov learns about the sale of products and urges his children to go to Egypt. Fearing that misfortune may occur, Yaacov does not allow Binyamin, the youngest of his sons and Yosef’s brother, on his mother’s side, to accompany his brothers on this journey. To acquire food, the brothers must necessarily go to Yosef, who immediately recognizes them. The brothers prostrate themselves in front of Yosef, assuming that he is an Egyptian dignitary while he remembers that what was predicted in one of his dreams is being fulfilled.

Yosef creates difficulties for his brothers by suggesting that their mission is to spy on the country, and in this way forces them to give him additional personal data. “We are twelve brothers, children of one father”, they said, “the little one is with his father, and one is no more”. To prove the veracity of their words Yosef demands that one of the brothers be held hostage, while they return to bring Binyamin.

The brothers embark on the journey back to their father’s house. Yehudah urges the father to allow Binyamin to accompany them on a second shopping trip to Egypt. The famine became accentuated and without additional food, it will not be possible to survive. Much to his regret, the elder Yaacov gives his consent for Binyamin to accompany them. Through a ploy, Yosef’s cup is hidden in Binyamin’s luggage, allowing for a new tragedy. When the theft of the cup is discovered, Yosef accuses the brothers of treason and ingratitude. But, Yosef adds, the only culprit is the one who had seized the cup, trying to implicate Binyamín. These cups were used at that time for enchantments and sorcery, so their theft was very significant and highly compromising.

Our weekly reading begins with Yehudah’s speech before Yosef recounting the events that led to this critical situation. Yaacov will not survive, the disappearance of Binyamin, because Nafsho keshurah benafsho“, his spirit (Yaacov’s) was tied to his spirit (that of Binyamin)”, since he was the last son of his beloved Rachel. When Yaacov refuses to give permission for Binyamin to accompany his brothers on the second trip to Egypt, the firstborn Reuven tells him “Et shenei banai tamit, im lo avi’enu elecha“, you can kill my two sons if I don’t bring him back to you”.  Reuven’s words were not convincing because Would Yaacov takes revenge on his grandchildren for his son’s disappearance?

Yehudah, on the other hand, argued responsibly by telling the father that with his own hands he would take care of Binyamin and if something unexpected happened, “Vechatati lecha kol hayamim“, I will consider having sinned before you for the rest of my life”. Yehudah offers himself to Yosef as a slave in exchange for Binyamin’s freedom, because the outcome would be fatal for his father Yaacov.

Yosef can no longer contain his emotions. The suffering he has caused his siblings is reaching extreme limits and he fears for his father’s precarious health. His dreams have come true, and the brothers have suffered mentally and emotionally from the damage they caused him years ago.  Yosef decides to reveal his identity to his brothers and the shared cry is heard everywhere. The brothers are dismayed to hear the words, “I am Yosef, haod aví jai”, “I am Yosef, does my father still live?”

Yosef proposes that their act of betrayal would have been, in a way, guided by God so that he could help them during the years of famine. Yosef urges them to quickly return to the ancestral home and notify the father about his existence. Vehigadtem le’avi et kol kevodí bemitsrayim”, “and tell my father about all my honors in Egypt”, is the proud message Yosef sends to his father.

Aware of Yosef’s gentle, though not always modest, character, some commentators suggest that Yosef told his brothers, “Vehigadtem”, “and tell everyone”, that “le’avi”, “to my father” belong all the honors I receive in Egypt. All this, in recognition of the education and preparation he had received at home from his parents, that allowed him to reach such a high position in the Court of Pharaoh.

Why was Yosef silent during all those years? Was he not aware of the suffering that his absence caused his elderly father Yaacov? Upon reaching a position of power in Egypt he could have sent for his brothers and his father to come and enjoy the benefits of the lands of the Nile. Different answers have been offered, but none of them are entirely satisfactory.

Yaacov, despite the abundance of detail in his sons’ account, did not believe that Yosef was alive and that he had reached an exalted position. But the Torah says, Vayar et ha’agalot… Vatechi ruach Yaacov avihem“, and he saw the wagons… and Yaacov’s spirit came to life”. The word Agalah has a double meaning in Hebrew. It can be translated as a cart and as a calf. Rashi says that the last matter Yosef had discussed with his father was the case of a deceased corpse abandoned in the countryside and its resolution requires the offering of a calf.  

Yaacov had taught him that the distance between the deceased and the hamlets of the area should be measured. The elders of the nearest hamlet were to declare that they had not shed innocent blood and then offer a calf as a sacrifice. It could be argued that the most appropriate thing would have been a raid to capture the known criminals of the vicinity to try to identify the culprit of the crime. But tradition wanted to teach that the elderly, as representatives of an organized society, had to take responsibility when a crime was committed in their environment. Because the crime committed was considered a consequence of the atmosphere of debauchery and a demonstration that the teachings of the teachers and leaders had not had the expected effect. 

The Agalot, “carts” recalled the Eglah, the “calf” of the sacrifice, which in turn symbolized the last subject that Yaacov had studied with Yosef. He, therefore concluded that only his son Yosef could have made this allusion. This had an additional meaning. It was about the subject of an abandoned corpse, and he, Yosef, had also been abandoned to the uncertainty of slavery, which normally ended in violent death.

The meeting between father and son was very exciting, with tears and joy. Pharaoh receives them generously, “Bemetav ha’arets hoshev et avicha. .., “place your father in the best of lands”,  “Yeshvu be’erets goshen“, “let them settle in the land of Goshen”. Goshen is a privileged place for its earthly wealth. But Goshen is also a ghetto because Pharaoh limited the residence of Yaacov and his sons to a specific area.

In the next chapters, we will read that the Pharaoh, in a change of heart (according to some commentators, it is a new Pharaoh) decides that these new foreigners can subvert the order of the kingdom, so he takes measures to control their numerical growth. New laws are issued that can be easily imposed because the Hebrews reside in a defined territory, in a specific enclave. This fact will serve as a model for the Middle Ages and for the Nazis of our times who not only learned from the past but surpassed, in intensity and degree, the cruelty of previous eras.