Posted on

GROUNDS FOR THE RETENTION OF IDENTITY

VAYECHI

The last chapters of Bereshit conclude in an atmosphere of tranquility for the patriarch. On his deathbed, the patriarch Jacob refers to each of his children and shows that he recognizes them individually; he knows their flaws and virtues, unlike his father Yitschak, who is deceived by a son in disguise.

Yaacov has resided in Egypt where his family enjoys the food that was scarce in the Promised Land. Yosef, who is the son of his favorite but deceased wife Rachel, had become the ruler of the country and therefore there was no reason to fear the future. Was Yaacov willing to abandon the land of his father and grandfather in exchange for the abundance in the fertile valley of the Nile? The patriarch had asked to be buried in Israel because he considered Egypt to be no more than an intermediate station. The fate of his descendants, he thought, was ineluctably tied to the land that God had promised Avraham and his descendants. Even the successful Yosef, insisted that his remains be included in the future exodus from Egypt.

How did the Hebrews avoid the natural process of assimilation? The Midrash suggests that they held onto various elements. They kept alive their native language Hebrew. They probably spoke Egyptian in order to communicate with the natives, but among themselves, they continued to use the paternal language. It should be clear that language does not mean a simple substitution: table for shulchan, for example. Language implies a particular manner of thinking, formulating ideas. It includes values, priorities in life. Language reflects a culture. In the Hebrew civilization, there was the imperative to believe in one and only one God. Even though the Torah never demands it and begins directly with the account of Bereshit, “at the beginning God created heaven and earth”, it is naturally understood. The Torah does not require to believe God because God is an axiomatic postulate. The universe is inconceivable without the Creator. They did not fall prey to Egyptian idolatry because they actually felt the Presence of God in their midst.

The episode of Yosef’s “sale” and its apparent consequences had deepened their certainty about the existence of God. Hadn’t Yosef himself made the argument that the sibling’s jealousy had been the mechanism used by the Creator to ensure the sustenance of the family in the time of famine? The events were part of the destiny that God had designed for the Hebrew people.

The second element that prevented its assimilation was the retention of their dress style. They did not succumb to the advanced Egyptian fashion world. The Talmud, for example, insists that the scholar, the student of the Torah, must be jealous of his clothing. Even in our cultures, uniforms are representative of the investiture of the priesthood, the police and armed forces. 

But there is something else, by retaining the original manner of dress, a person expresses his or her desire to retain an identity and transmits a firm message to others: the will to remain true to what they are and their unwillingness to shed their identity.

Name retention is the third item that secured fidelity to the ancestral tradition and prevented total assimilation into the Egyptian culture and social environment. In the U.S, for example, it is often difficult to recognize a Jew by his name.

For various reasons and not always because of an assimilatory nature, many people changed their names. Some did it out of fear, so as not to be easily identifiable by some anti-Semite as was the case in many a European city or village. 

A long history of persecution was responsible for this precaution. Yet, a change of name, invariably leads to a loss, even if only partial, of identity. However, the basic reason that caused resistance to assimilation was the retention of ancestral values, a fact insured by Yaacov’s presence when the family moved to Egypt. 

Having stayed away from his family, Yosef would have been fully integrated into the environment that he finally embraced and would have forgotten his roots.

Thanks to the presence of the entire family, they gave each other support In order to resist the temptations of the seductive Egyptian culture. Judaism started as a family business with Avraham and Sara. 

The innumerable humiliations and persecutions did not make them change their identity because the basic nucleus, the family, was always well defined and constituted. On the contrary, adversity only served as a catalytic agent to deepen these ties that until present times constitute the most important asset: the feeling of security and inclusion in a family that defy all the rules of History and remains true to its God-given principles.

Posted on

IDENTIFICATION WITH THE PAIN OF THE NEIGHBOR

VAYIGASH

The youngest brother, Binyamin, was accused of stealing the cup of Yosef that he used for spells, and for that, he was going to be imprisoned. Yehuda assumed the defense of the young man and implored for his fate, he even offered to carry out personally the punishment imposed on Binyamin, because he had guaranteed his safety to his father. Actually, the older brother, Reuven, had wanted to assume the responsibility for Binyamín, placing as insurance the life of his own children. Yaacov rejected Reuven’s offer because he couldn’t avenge any accident that happened with Binyamin by doing damage to his own grandchildren.

Why does Yaacov agree to entrust Yehudah with the security of Binyamin? Yehudah offers no more security than his own honor: to be a sinner before his father for the rest of his days. The Midrash suggests that Yehudah promises his portion in the Hereafter if something happened to Binyamin.

Returning to the biblical narrative, we read that when the brothers inform the elderly father Yaacov that they have to bring Binyamin next time as proof of the veracity of their words, the patriarch questions why they informed the Egyptian hierarch about their brother? Have not the difficulties and misfortunes that had happened so far been enough? Alai hayu chulana, “everything has fallen about me”, exclaims Yaacov.

The word “alai” had been used by Rivka when she induced her son Yaacov to disguise himself as if he were Esav. When Yaacov replied that if the father found out about the ploy, disaster could strike. To appease him, Rivka said: “alai kilelatecha bení, “may the curse be diverted to me.”

Like his mother, Yaacov also uses the word “alai”, and taking into account that he had lost his favorite son Yosef, now that he hears that he must risk Binyamin, the word “alai” highlights his anguish and deep pain.  The Midrash suggests that the word “alai” which is written with the letters “ayin”, “lamed” and “yod”, is a reference to three characters that caused Yaacov anxiety: Esav, Lavan and Yosef.

The rivalry with Esav is known, a competition that started when the brothers were still in the entrails of the mother. Hatred and confrontation occur generally between people who are close and live together and produce suffering.

In the home of his uncle Lavan, Yaacov had to learn to defend his interests, because from day one he was deceived. First, when his wife was changed, placing Lea in Rachel’s place. Then his uncle tried to trick him with the remuneration for his work. The deception that Yaacov had perpetrated against his father Yitschak and the one who forged against his brother Esav, was being settled symbolically. Lavan was the brother of his mother Rivka and although Yaacov would have preferred to have an affectionate family relationship with his uncle, and suffered for not being able to do it.

The greatest pain for a parent is the loss of a child, it goes against nature. Therefore, Yaacov never forgot the disappearance of Yosef. He probably had doubts about what happened, because it was an act full of irony when the brothers presented the father with the bloody robe of Yosef and asked him to recognize it. It was the same robe that had produced the jealousy among the brothers for the preferential treatment Yosef received from their father. “Surely he was eaten, a bad beast swallowed him”, was the reaction of the father. But we should not underestimate the whirlwind of doubts that seized the patriarch. That the brothers themselves they were guilty of Yosef’s disappearance, perhaps crossed his mind. Thus, there was no consolation. Who could relate to the pain caused by the loss of a child?

Yehudah could identify with Yaacov’s pain because he had lost two sons: Er and Onan, who, married successively Tamar and died for their sin.

According to biblical commentators, in their intimate relationships with Tamar, Er prevented her from becoming pregnant so that the pregnancy did not disfigure her. Onan also did the same, because he thought that the son that Tamar would bear would be considered the son of her deceased brother.

Yaacov entrusted the care of Binyamin to Yehudah because he thought he was the only son who had empathy for him and could feel the inconsolable pain at the loss of a son.

Posted on

FRATERNAL INTRIGUES AND LEADERSHIP QUALITIES

MIKETS

The subject of our chapters is the well-known story of Yosef and his brothers, the intrigues and jealousy that caused Yosef’s “sale” that, in turn, led to his servitude in the home of Potiphar, chief of the slaughter-men or butchers of the pharaoh.

For refusing the amorous advances of his wife’s master, Yosef is jailed and demonstrates his intellectual and spiritual abilities by correctly interpreting the dreams of two detainees. That aptitude is remembered by one of them, the cupbearer when he returns to the monarch’s grace.

When astrologers fail to adequately explain Pharaoh’s dream, the cupbearer suggests that Yosef be brought from the depths of prison to interpret the dream. Yosef’s intelligence and spirituality come to the fore by the brilliance of his interpretation and the suggestions that suggest taking advantage of the prediction contained in the dream.

To avail himself of the exceptional gifts of the young man, Pharaoh appoints Yosef as his second in command to lead the fate of the Egyptians for years to come. Events necessarily unfold according to divine design and the brothers are forced to travel to Egypt to buy food because of the famine that envelops the region. The difficulties inherent in this mission led the brothers to remember their original crime: Yosef’s “sale”. What caused this tragic event?

There was a competition for leadership among the brothers. On the one hand, Reuven, the oldest, and on the other side was Yehudah, fourth in age, but with great charisma and clear leadership qualities. The story of the “sale” begins when the elderly father Yaacov sends Yosef to inquire about the welfare of the brothers who had gone far away from home in search of pasture for their flocks. As soon as the brothers saw Yosef from afar, they decide to assassinate him,  perhaps because they think that he came to spy on their behavior and then rat about them to the father, just as he had done before.

The exegetes point to Shimon and Levi as the probable protagonists of this sinister plan, since they had shown unusual cruelty in the case of the violation of their sister Dina. 

It is then that Reuven assumes the leadership of the firstborn and suggests that they not kill Yosef in order not to bear responsibility for shedding his blood.  It was better, he argues, to throw him into a well where he will not be able to survive.

After the first encounter with the brothers who came to buy food, Yosef – who has not yet made himself known to his brothers – demands that Binyamin accompanies them on their next visit, a fact that will sustain the veracity of their story. The father, who is still mourning because of Yosef’s disappearance, refuses to allow it, and the brothers Reuven and Yehuda, present arguments about the necessity of Binyamin to participate in the next trip to Egypt. Reuven offers his children as guarantors for Binyamin’s safety, but the argument does not convince the father, because the possible loss of his youngest son could not be compensated with the lives of his own grandchildren.

Yehudah argues that in case of an accident that would occur with Binyamin, he – Yehudah – will remain in moral debt to the father for the remainder of his days. But moreover, Yaacov knows that Yehudah had suffered the personal loss of two sons, Er and Onan, and, therefore, had great personal empathy for the pain that the death of a son produces. Yehudah showed tangible sensitivity in the face of possible tragedy.

Yehudah became the factual leader because he assumed responsibility for his conduct in the case of his daughter-in-law Tamar.

Indeed, at the crucial moment of the trial for adultery, when Tamar showed the clothes belonging to the man responsible because of her pregnancy, Yehuda publicly acknowledged that the garments belonged to him. He could have ignored the evidence during the trial and permit the fulfillment of the death penalty of Tamar, thereby erasing an obscure fact from his recent past. Since due to the seductive dress of Tamar, Yehuda had a casual sexual relationship with her by assuming she was a prostitute.

Yehudah did not evade duty in the face of the precarious and dangerous situation of Tamar and showed the fundamental characteristic of a leader: take responsibility for the facts, without taking into account the consequences. One of the reasons why an individual is willing to follow the command of another is because he knows that that person will always tell the truth and will not abandon him, notwithstanding the “cost” and the danger it implies for the leader.

The bravery of nowadays Israeli soldiers is also related to the knowledge, with complete certainty, that his companions will never abandon him and that will do what is humanly possible in order to rescue him in case he falls into enemy hands.

This behavior is inherited from the example of Yehudah who received the trust of his brothers and became their leader as a forerunner of the Kings of Israel. In the words of Yaacov “lo yasur shevet miYehudah” the scepter of kingship will never be taken away from Yehudah.

Posted on

RIVALRY BETWEEN BROTHERS

VAYESHEV

The Torah characterizes the era of Noah with the following phrase: ki yétser lev haadam ra mineurav, “from his youth, the inclination of the heart of man is evil.” Why? Because no one wanted to listen to the warnings of Noah who took 120 years to build the ark, giving enough time for many people to rethink their attitude and choose to save themselves from the flood that was approaching evermore. In fact, that penchant for evil manifested itself when Kayin murdered his brother Hevel, and a replay almost occurred in the case of Esav, who vowed to kill his brother Yaacov for having taken away his father’s blessing through a stratagem.

We read in these chapters about another possible murder: the brothers plan to kill Yosef. Why? For his dreams. This is what the Torah tells us that when the brothers perceive Yosef from afar, they exclaimed: “Here comes the dreamer” and immediately plan his murder.

In the case of Kayin and Hevel, the Torah does not detail what the quarrel or verbal fight between the brothers consisted, an event that culminated in the death of the youngest of them. In Yaacov’s case, Esav felt that he had been betrayed by his twin brother who, through deception, took away the fatherly blessing. When analyzing what happened between the brothers who would later become the parents of the twelve tribes of Israel, how can murder be justified as a reaction to a dream? The brothers throw Yosef into a well to starve from hunger and immediately sit down to a hearty dinner. The irony of the facts shows excessive cruelty.

It must be remembered that Yaacov’s children came from different mothers, and there surely developed a marked rivalry between the children of Leah and the children of Rachel. Didn’t the children know that Lea was the one who was despised, the woman who was imposed on the patriarch through deception, a ploy similar to the one Yaacov had used a few years ago to obtain the father’s blessing? There was no doubt that the patriarch had transferred his love for the late Rachel to Yosef and Binyamin. In later chapters, the Torah will testify to Yehudah’s willingness to take Binyamin’s place in prison, because he knows that the father will never be able to bear the pain that will produce the absence of the young man who was born at the time Rachel expired.

Natan Aviezer interprets Yehuda’s noble action in offering his willingness to take Binyamin’s place in jail as a clear demonstration that he was aware of the difference in affection. The father had shown clear preference for Rachel’s sons and it was opportune that Yehudah stays in prison instead of Binyamin. Even when Shimon is imprisoned, the brothers do not suggest that the father send Binyamin. Only when supplies are about to run out, do the brothers think that the young man should accompany them on their next trip to Egypt.

Yosef’s dreams were the trigger for the brothers to act against the unjust preference of the father for Rachel’s children. Didn’t they have the same father? Why did the father buy a multi-colored tunic only for Yosef? Years later, when the father lay on the deathbed, all the brothers exclaimed in unison: Shema Israel …, “Listen father Israel, HaShem our God, HaShem is unique.” The message of monotheism had been internalized by the brothers, but Yosef acted just as if he were Yaacov’s sole spiritual heir.

When the brothers threw Yosef into the empty well, did they just want to scare him, or did they really want to eliminate him? When the brothers agree to sell Yosef to slave traders, they show that although they wanted to get rid of the young man, they were not willing to spill his blood. Although slavery represented a death sentence of prolonged agony, there was always the possibility that Yosef would be saved.

We are at the beginning of the creation of the Hebrew people and our ancestors will make mistakes and commit errors. What is important and decisive is the direction of their actions and desires. Over the years, the reckless initial steps will give way to concrete – and often heroic – acts of those who with their energetic personalities set the course and forged the character of a nation that survived the outrage and injustice, to appear with renewed vigor in the arenas of history with the creation of the modern State of Israel.