Posted on

SPIRITUALITY SHOULD NOT BE COMPROMISED

LECH LECHA

The hero of these chapters is the patriarch Avraham who obeys God’s exhortation to leave the safety of his hometown and the warmth of his parents’ home to head to a new land which, at first, was not identified. The family initially heads to the city of Haran and only Avraham, his nephew Lot and their respective families continue the journey to the Promised Land, known in those days as Canaan.

Avraham is not the sole hero. His wife Sarai and his nephew Lot deserve honorable mention as well. Because they also made the decision to leave the comfort of a familiar environment and head to a strange and

possibly hostile land. This joint experience should have brought uncle and nephew closer together, both in a spiritual and in emotional way. Therefore, it is strange to witness a fight between their respective shepherds over lands and grass and then decide to separate. Avraham urges Lot to choose first and then he will take the opposite path. Initially, the monotheistic ideal had united them, now, the abundance of livestock produces separation.

Perhaps the first verse of our chapters needs to be better understood: Lech Lecha, “go away!”. Did Avraham have to break all ties with his relatives, including Lot? What had been the fundamental intention of the Divine instruction, when God commanded Avraham to abandon the home of his parents¿ Was it because he would not be able to consolidate his ideal in that environment, namely, the existence of only one God?

We must not forget that his nephew had lost his father and now he, his uncle Avraham had to become the surrogate father.

What was Lot’s fundamental motive to follow his uncle? Was it faith in God or an intriguing adventure? Or was it the unique family bond and security offered by the presence of Avraham?

The Midrash interprets the quarrel between Avraham’s shepherds

and Lot as a moral dispute. Lot’s shepherds were willing to seize the lands of the Canaanites by arguing that God had ceded these lands to Avraham, and since Lot was the rightful heir to the patriarch, his shepherds could take advantage of those lands immediately. The argument of Avraham’s shepherds, however, was that while the Canaanites inhabited the place, it was not appropriate to use what would legitimately belong to them in the future.

God had promised Avraham that he would be the father of a great nation, but his wife Sarai – a name that later would be changed by Sara did not conceive a descendant.

Avraham thought that perhaps his offspring would be produced through his nephew Lot and, therefore, considered that he should only separate from his father Terach and the rest of the family. Lot would be the exception.

While Lot appears as an integral part of the intimate surroundings of the patriarch, the abundance of possessions causes conflict. Their possessions are no longer held in common. Lot has his herdsmen and cattle and Avraham has his.

Is it possible that the abundant flow of goods was to cause a spiritual and emotional negative effect? Apparently yes.

While they shared possessions, they also shared ideals. However, once Lot gains financial independence also wants to assert his intellectual and spiritual independence.

In Avraham’s case, material goods play a secondary role. The fundamental motive of his life is his monotheistic ideal, for which he was willing to sacrifice his only child, as we will learn in future chapters. Spirituality could not be compromised.

The case of Lot is different. He shows his priorities by separating from Avraham and choosing the fertile valleys for his livestock, although the inhabitants of those places were steeped in idolatry and all kinds of sexual deviations. It is clear that the well-being and development of material goods are basic for Lot and are willing to take any spiritual risk in an effort to become a potentate of livestock.

The future of monotheism could not depend on the attitude of Lot. It was necessary to make a separation, a division to differentiate the future heirs that Sarai would engender, from the philosophy of life represented by the materialism advocated by Lot.

Posted on

Información no es Conocimiento

En esta era de la información, de la data acumulada y presentada en cantidades jamás experimentadas en la historia de la humanidad, tendemos a confundir información con conocimiento. Sobre este tema quiero hablar en la entrega de hoy. ¿Qué efecto produce todo esto en las relaciones con el prójimo, en el desarrollo de los hijos? Escuchen este y todos mis programas en este canal Suscríbanse para permanecer en contacto. Muchas gracias por estar allí. MIles de personas disfrutan de estos videos gracias a que tu lo compartes y comentas. Recuerda visistar www.pynchasbrener.com #pynchasbrener. www.beshotproductions.net es la casa productora que realiza estos videos. Shavuah tov a todos #henrygrunberg

 

Posted on

THE LIMITS OF TECHNOLOGY

NOACH

The episode of the construction of the Tower of Babel, edification destroyed by God at the dawn of the history of Humanity has become the paradigm for the lack of understanding between people: they do not understand each other because they speak dissimilar languages. It’s not just a question of vocabulary: the problem lies in the concepts and in the meaning that we give to words. Indeed, the tower collapsed because those who were building it stopped understanding each other. Also, the completion of this building had become an obsession that, according to the Midrash, contributed to giving the individual greater significance than to the loss of a brick or the death of another human being.

What could have been the purpose of the building of this Tower of Babel? One possibility is that it served as a reference for people to find their way back to their place of origin since due to its height it could be observed from afar. On the other hand, as a consequence, it would stop populating the rest of the earth, since all would be concentrated in the same area of ​​the globe.

It is also pointed out that the Tower could serve to spy on people Because from its height one could have a panoramic view of the region. It would be a kind of control tower. (I remember that During our first visit to Havana in 1988, we were impressed by a tall structure within the complex of the Embassy of the Soviet Union: the feeling we had was that it was a kind of lookout tower from which one could make out every step of the town’s population).

Perhaps the main intention of this episode is to illustrate that man wanted to assume the role of the Creator: he felt very powerful because of his skills in the field of construction.

The man may have thought he could create another universe, just as God had done. Furthermore, the insistence on uniformity was a sign that they wanted to perpetuate their pagan cults and stop any alteration or change of their ritual.

It is clear that diversity allows and promotes growth and development. The confrontation of a diversity of ideas and thoughts, the adaptation to climatic extremes, and the unequal manifestations of nature, for example, demand an intelligent and creative response for every situation.

The idiomatic confusion that God produced so that men desist from the construction of the Tower of Babel had a didactic purpose. It showed that language is not necessary only to designate objects and to name feelings.

Language is a way of thinking. He or she who speaks  Spanish thinks differently from those who speak German.

Language reflects the cultural heritage of society: it expresses its idiosyncrasy. The technocrats responsible for the Tower of Babel probably thought that when the cusp of the Tower reached the sky they would discover the essential secrets of nature. They would then become gods. However, millennia later, at the beginning of the 21st century, the authentic scientist recognizes the enormity of his ignorance, he is aware that what remains to be learned is far greater than what he knows already and that there probably exist some kind of limits to human knowledge.

While the construction of the Tower was a demonstration of the advanced technology of the time, society continues on the move because of ideas and ideals that have always been present.

The basic notions of happiness and joy, satisfaction, and spiritual enjoyment are not the necessary consequence of new technologies.

Modernity has provided the means to alleviate the use of physical force at work, as well as indispensable tools for research in different areas. Yet love and hate, envy and altruism, meanness and generosity, feelings, emotions, and passions continue to be the factors are determinant in greater and deeper spirituality, and capable of giving greater meaning to the human presence on the planet.

Posted on

EL PACTO DIOS-HOMBRE

BERESHIT

Cada lectura de los textos bíblicos es diferente. El texto es inmutable, el lector cambia. Por ello, el comienzo de un nuevo ciclo de la Torá constituye un hito en la evolución intelectual y espiritual del judío.

El reto de los primeros capítulos del Génesis no desaparece: es el desafío de quienes proponen que la Torá es en realidad un compuesto basado en textos primarios. Este hecho resalta con la repetición de la historia de la creación del universo porque, según algunos, representa una huella de los textos que sirvieron al supuesto autor o autores humanos de las Sagradas Escrituras.

Según muchos exégetas tradicionales, existe una razón didáctica para las dos versiones. Mientras que el primer capítulo constituye un relato general sobre los orígenes de lo que nos rodea, el segundo capítulo es específico: se concentra en la historia del hombre, quien es el punto de referencia terrenal de la creación y, en especial, su relación única con el Creador: sólo el ser humano puede entrar en una correspondencia mutua con Dios, un “berit”, pacto, que establece obligaciones de parte y parte. La historia religiosa de la Humanidad se refiere a la estructura y condiciones de este “berit”, las violaciones y los cumplimientos que invariablemente tienen que ver con ese “pacto” con Dios. Cuando la relación con Dios se fractura, encontramos la semilla de la destrucción, hecho que se ve incrementado con el proceso imparable de la globalización, que ha convertido al globo terráqueo en una aldea.

Los Jajamim, los sabios, estaban atentos a las dificultades textuales, por ello sostuvieron serias discusiones acerca de la inclusión de algunos textos en el compendio del Tanaj, la Biblia. En particular, el libro de Ester presentó la gran interrogante: ¿acaso es posible insertar dentro de las Escrituras Sagrados un texto que no menciona el nombre de Dios? Tomaron una decisión afirmativa debido a la frase: “kiyemú vekibelú hayehudim aleihem veal zaram veal kol hanilvim aleihem veló yaavor lihyot osim…”, “los judíos decidieron que ellos, su simiente y todos los que se les unieran, continuasen observando escrupulosamente conforme a lo establecido…”. El cumplimiento de los instructivos de Ester y Mordejai a la población judía fue el hecho decisivo para que el libro de Ester fuese incluído en el canon de la Biblia. Además de la crítica que se puede efectuar con referencia al texto, se debe tomar en cuenta la influencia que el escrito ha ejercido para corregir y perfeccionar la disposición y actitud moral de la sociedad.

El relato del Génesis es majestuoso. La creación no es el resultado de una colisión de voluntades entre los dioses, el producto de cataclismos que se produjeron en el cosmos. El mundo nace como expresión de la voluntad de Dios, quien con la expresión “Vayomer Elohim”, “Y Dios dijo”, colocó a la idea y al pensamiento por encima de cualquier actividad física. Bereshit enseña que hay propósito en la creación, no se trata de un universo en el cual reinan el caos y la incertidumbre, el capricho y el azar. Existe un creador y por lo tanto coexiste la finalidad y el designio.

La ubicación del hombre y de la mujer en el idílico Gan Eden, el Jardín de Edén, muestra una naturaleza amiga que provee el fruto para el sustento. Cuando esta naturaleza se rebela puede ser amaestrada o controlada, se puede hacer construcciones antisísmicas, por ejemplo. En cambio, quien hace peligrar, de manera sostenida, la existencia de la especie humana es el hombre mismo debido a su agresividad, cualidad probablemente indispensable para el crecimiento y el desarrollo, la evolución y el perfeccionamiento, pero que demanda un precio altísimo. Por ello, la Torá exige que la conducta del hombre se rija por un conjunto de leyes que sabiamente enseña el judaísmo, según una revelación directa del Creador que recibió en Sinai. Dios no podía abandonar su creación en manos de esos seres a quienes dotó con gran inteligencia y cuyo potencial puede tomar el rumbo de la construcción o de la destrucción. Para asegurar la supervivencia de la especie y de la naturaleza junto con la flora y fauna que posee, legisló la Mitsvá para asegurar un comportamiento que garantice Yemot HaMashíaj, “los días del Mesías, una era de convivencia que no será una consecuencia de la Voluntad de Dios, sino que será el producto del convencimiento de su creación de última hora, en el sexto día: el ser humano.