GENESIS XXXII:4-XXXVI:43

WITH AN EYE ALWAYS ON ISRAEL

Biblical heroes are not one-dimensional, and their personalities are not elementary. They are complex figures who have to battle and win, fight and overcome their impulses and passions. The Sentence of the Torah about the times of Noach (Noah),”for the inclination of a man’s heart is perverse from his youth,” applies universally and includes figures who, by the example of their lives, will be transcendental. 

Bereshit‘s (Genesis) accounts underscore the inner struggles and ethical conflicts of the patriarchs. When we read the epic of their lives, we are forced to delve into the reason for their performance under the most dissimilar circumstances. If we choose to rationalize and justify each of their acts, we lose the valuable opportunity to learn from their existential trances and the way they faced them. 

How can one excuse, for example, the deception perpetrated  by Yaakov (Jacob), instigated and assisted by his mother, to obtain his father’s blessing? Yaakov took advantage of the blindness of the old Yitschak (Isaac), and even at the risk of being discovered, he pretended to be Esav (Esau) by covering his hands and neck with the skin of an animal. If we assume that the patriarchs behaved in accordance with the dictates that the Torah (Pentateuch)would require in the future, Yaakov ignored one of the principles of great moral content, Lifnei iver lo titenmichshol, “you shall not place an obstacle in front of a blind man.” Even more so when the blind man was his own father.

In a previous episode, Yaakov had shown a great lack of solidarity with his brother. The scene in question describes Esav, tired from the work of hunting, observing Yaakov who is preparing a lentil soup with bread and asks him: “Let me taste this ‘red’ food that you are cooking.” The response of the one who was to raise the spirit of Chesed, the characteristic of mercy and piety

exemplified by his grandfather Avraham (Abraham), it should have been, “Eat and satisfy your hunger, brother.” But that was not his reaction: on the contrary, he took advantage of the situation to demand, in exchange for food, the right to the birthright that was

power of Esav because he was born first.

It can be argued that Yaakov had an extraordinary appreciation and respect for the principles of faith that his father and grandfather were preaching and knew that the “insincere” Esav, according to the traditional exegetes of the biblical text, would abandon this legacy at the earliest opportunity, when he had to choose between immediate carnal or material satisfaction and the sacrifice and deprivation that,  on many occasions, it demands loyalty to an ideal. Both Mother Rivkah (Rebecca) and Yaakov knew that Yitschak’s (Isaac’s) teachings would not be respected by Esav and resorted to deception and opportunism to secure a future for the monotheistic ideal. They justified the means by the end they pursued, and, in this way, they were establishing a very dangerous precedent.

The twenty years he spent at his uncle Lavan’s (Laban) side  were clearly aimed at molding Yaakov‘s spirit. There he was subjected to deception, even about his marriage: one woman was replaced by another, in an elementary but convincing demonstration that “blindness” is not caused solely by the malfunctioning of the eye, as in the case of Yitschak: the person who is in full use of his faculties can also be deceived.

The paternal blessing he had snatched away did not prevent him from having to work long hours each day, for months and years, to acquire many animals and goods. If a few years ago he had demanded in exchange for a few spoonfuls of lentils the privilege of serving as the priest of the family, now, at the time of the reunion with his brother Esav, he would have to implore the latter to accept a magnanimous “gift” consisting of a large number of animals, in exchange for leaving him alone and not using the fire of the four hundred men who accompanied him.  and to forget the offense committed in his youth.

A cursory reading of the text reveals no flaw in Esav’scharacter. On the contrary, he obtains the affection of Yitschak, remains at the side of his parents, and does not abandon them. He forgives the betrayal of his brother Yaakov. However, the last verses of Vayishlach demonstrate Esav’s limited idealism. Probably due to the increase in their possessions as a result of Yaakov‘s large “gift”, the land cannot support the cattle of both brothers. Therefore, Esav decides to leave the Promised Land and heads to the mountains of Edom, where he will remain ever since.

Yaakov will also leave the Promised Land and head to Egypt in search of food. And although the Hebrews would later suffer centuries of slavery in a foreign land, they would never lose their way: they would return and conquer the land of Israel, their historical destiny to this day.

MITZVAH: ORDINANCE OF THE TORAH IN THIS PARSHA

CONTAINS 1 PROHIBITION

3. Genesis 32:33 Do not ingest the sciatic nerve (gid hanashe)

GENESIS XXXII:4-XXXVI:43

WITH AN EYE ALWAYS ON ISRAEL

Biblical heroes are not one-dimensional, and their personalities are not elementary. They are complex figures who have to battle and win, fight and overcome their impulses and passions. The Sentence of the Torah about the times of Noach (Noah),”for the inclination of a man’s heart is perverse from his youth,” applies universally and includes figures who, by the example of their lives, will be transcendental. 

Bereshit‘s (Genesis) accounts underscore the inner struggles and ethical conflicts of the patriarchs. When we read the epic of their lives, we are forced to delve into the reason for their performance under the most dissimilar circumstances. If we choose to rationalize and justify each of their acts, we lose the valuable opportunity to learn from their existential trances and the way they faced them. 

How can one excuse, for example, the deception perpetrated  by Yaakov (Jacob), instigated and assisted by his mother, to obtain his father’s blessing? Yaakov took advantage of the blindness of the old Yitschak (Isaac), and even at the risk of being discovered, he pretended to be Esav (Esau) by covering his hands and neck with the skin of an animal. If we assume that the patriarchs behaved in accordance with the dictates that the Torah (Pentateuch)would require in the future, Yaakov ignored one of the principles of great moral content, Lifnei iver lo titenmichshol, “you shall not place an obstacle in front of a blind man.” Even more so when the blind man was his own father.

In a previous episode, Yaakov had shown a great lack of solidarity with his brother. The scene in question describes Esav, tired from the work of hunting, observing Yaakov who is preparing a lentil soup with bread and asks him: “Let me taste this ‘red’ food that you are cooking.” The response of the one who was to raise the spirit of Chesed, the characteristic of mercy and piety

exemplified by his grandfather Avraham (Abraham), it should have been, “Eat and satisfy your hunger, brother.” But that was not his reaction: on the contrary, he took advantage of the situation to demand, in exchange for food, the right to the birthright that was

power of Esav because he was born first.

It can be argued that Yaakov had an extraordinary appreciation and respect for the principles of faith that his father and grandfather were preaching and knew that the “insincere” Esav, according to the traditional exegetes of the biblical text, would abandon this legacy at the earliest opportunity, when he had to choose between immediate carnal or material satisfaction and the sacrifice and deprivation that,  on many occasions, it demands loyalty to an ideal. Both Mother Rivkah (Rebecca) and Yaakov knew that Yitschak’s (Isaac’s) teachings would not be respected by Esav and resorted to deception and opportunism to secure a future for the monotheistic ideal. They justified the means by the end they pursued, and, in this way, they were establishing a very dangerous precedent.

The twenty years he spent at his uncle Lavan’s (Laban) side  were clearly aimed at molding Yaakov‘s spirit. There he was subjected to deception, even about his marriage: one woman was replaced by another, in an elementary but convincing demonstration that “blindness” is not caused solely by the malfunctioning of the eye, as in the case of Yitschak: the person who is in full use of his faculties can also be deceived.

The paternal blessing he had snatched away did not prevent him from having to work long hours each day, for months and years, to acquire many animals and goods. If a few years ago he had demanded in exchange for a few spoonfuls of lentils the privilege of serving as the priest of the family, now, at the time of the reunion with his brother Esav, he would have to implore the latter to accept a magnanimous “gift” consisting of a large number of animals, in exchange for leaving him alone and not using the fire of the four hundred men who accompanied him.  and to forget the offense committed in his youth.

A cursory reading of the text reveals no flaw in Esav’scharacter. On the contrary, he obtains the affection of Yitschak, remains at the side of his parents, and does not abandon them. He forgives the betrayal of his brother Yaakov. However, the last verses of Vayishlach demonstrate Esav’s limited idealism. Probably due to the increase in their possessions as a result of Yaakov‘s large “gift”, the land cannot support the cattle of both brothers. Therefore, Esav decides to leave the Promised Land and heads to the mountains of Edom, where he will remain ever since.

Yaakov will also leave the Promised Land and head to Egypt in search of food. And although the Hebrews would later suffer centuries of slavery in a foreign land, they would never lose their way: they would return and conquer the land of Israel, their historical destiny to this day.

MITZVAH: ORDINANCE OF THE TORAH IN THIS PARSHA

CONTAINS 1 PROHIBITION

3. Genesis 32:33 Do not ingest the sciatic nerve (gid hanashe)

GENESIS XXVIII:10-XXXII:3

YAAKOV OR THE STRENGTH OF BEING

Yaakov (Jacob) was forced to leave his father’s home to prevent his brother Esav (Esau) from murdering him for having snatched his father’s blessing through deception. The mother, Rivka (Rebecca), who had devised the stratagem for Yaakov to  obtain the blessing, finally convinced her husband, the elder Yitschak (Isaac), that Yaakov was the right person, who would ensure the transmission of the patriarchal teachings to future generations. It was now necessary for him to marry a member of the family who still resided in Haran, to prevent him from marrying one of the Canaanite women who were likely to lead him to the practice of idolatry in the marriage.

According to the biblical text, Yaakov was Yoshev Ohalim, a young man accustomed to the warmth of his father’s home, who now had to go into exile to find his destiny in the environment of relatives he did not know. There he would stumble upon the deception of his uncle Lavan (Laban),who would take advantage of the fruit of his labor and marry him to his two daughters, even though Yaakov only wanted Rachel, the youngest daughter.

Unlike Avraham (Abraham), who had commissioned his faithful servant Eliezer to choose a suitable wife for Yitschak, the attitude of Yaakov‘s parents  is different: they rely on his judgment to select a suitable partner to ensure the survival of the monotheistic ideal.

It should be noted that while Avraham was willing to offer to Yitschak on an altar, he did not have enough confidence in his judgment to choose the companion of his life. According to the exegetes of the Bible, Yitschakwas thirty-seven years old when he was “bound” on the altar, so that the father had not subdued a minor. Yitschak had consciously participated in the “test” to which they had been subjected by God.

However, in the case of marriage, Avraham preferred to send Eliezer to find a wife for Yitschak, even though one cannot entrust the feeling and passion to another person. If we consider that love is the fundamental ingredient for the choice of a partner, Eliézer‘s opinion  should not have been decisive.

But when it is opined that virtues such as kindness and charity are the qualities that should predominate, then Eliezer could be more objective, because emotion and personal passion would be absent.

Yaakov’s case is different, because he could contrast his behavior with the way of being of his brother Esav: he knew other alternatives and, therefore, he could probably defend himself against any ruse. However, he was deceived by Lavan, who took improper advantage of the fruit of their labors. After a twenty-year stay at Lavan’s side, Yaakov returned to the land of his ancestors.

According to the opinion of the Chachamim (Sages), Yaakov was never infected by his uncle’s immoralities. They identify the phrase Im Lavan “garti“ with the 613 mitsvot he observed. Although he saw Lavan’sexample, he remained faithful to Yitschak’s teachings. However, the biblical text reports that when Yaakov resided in the Land of Israel and wanted to enjoy tranquility and tranquility, the drama began among his sons: the envy and rivalry that caused the “sale” of Yosef, one of the brothers. Although Yaakov was not infected by Lavan’s immorality, his sons, on the other hand, did not emerge unscathed from the experience. The jealousy that arose between the brothers was a consequence of the example they observed in Lavan’s home  and that they now reproduced in their relationship.

It is possible that in the process of nation-building, differences of opinion and adversity are necessary, and perhaps indispensable. Without the subsequent period of slavery in Egypt, which began with the “sale” of Yosef, the Hebrew people would never have been consolidated, who have resisted millennia of exile and have never lost their identity.

Adversity is the crucible in which the national character is forged, while the mission of propagating the monotheistic ideal of the patriarchs is the spur that gives rise to the indispensable energy to reach the destination: a nation whose task is to be “or lagoyim”, a beacon for Humanity.

GÉNESIS XXVIII:10-XXXII:3

YAACOV O LA FORTALEZA DEL SER

Yaacov se vió obligado a abandonar el hogar paterno para evitar que su hermano Esav lo asesinara por haber arrebatado la bendición paterna a través de un engaño. La madre, Rivká, que había ideado la estratagema para que Yaacov obtuviera la bendición, convence finalmente a su esposo, el anciano Yitsjak, de que Yaacov era la persona indicada, quien garantizaría la transmisión de las enseñanzas patriarcales a las generaciones futuras. Era necesario ahora que contrajese matrimonio con un miembro de la familia que aún residiera en Jarán, para evitar que esposara una de las mujeres canaanitas que probablemente lo conducirían a la práctica de la

idolatría.

Según el texto bíblico, Yaacov era yoshev ohalim, un joven acostumbrado al calor del hogar paterno, que ahora tenía que ir al exilio para encontrar su destino en el entorno de familiares que desconocía. Allí tropezaría con el engaño de su tío Laván, quien aprovechándose del fruto de su trabajo lo casaría con sus dos hijas, no obstante que Yaacov sólo quería a Rajel, la hija menor.

A diferencia de Abraham, que había encargado a su fiel siervo Eliézer para que escogiese una esposa apropiada para Yitsjak, la actitud de los padres de Yaacov es diferente: confían en su juicio para seleccionar una pareja apropiada para asegurar la supervivencia del ideal monoteísta.

Cabe destacar que mientras Avraham estaba dispuesto a ofrendar a Yitsjaksobre un altar, no tenía suficiente confianza en su juicio para escoger la compañera de su vida. Según los exégetas de la Biblia, Yitsjak tenía treinta y siete años cuando fue “atado” sobre el altar, de tal manera que el padre no había sometido a un menor de edad. Yitsjak había participado conscientemente en la “prueba” a la cual habían sido sometidos por Dios.

No obstante, en el caso del matrimonio, Avraham prefirió enviar a Eliézerpara encontrar una esposa para Yitsjak, a pesar de que no se puede encomendar el sentimiento y la pasión a otra persona. Está claro que, si consideramos que el amor es el ingrediente fundamental para la escogencia de una pareja, la opinión de Eliézer no ha debido sido determinante.

Pero cuando se opina que virtudes como la bondad y la caridad son las cualidades que deben predominar, entonces Eliézer podría ser más objetivo, porque la emoción y la pasión personal estarían ausentes.

El caso de Yaacov es diferente, porque podía contrastar su comportamiento con la manera de ser de su hermano Esav: conocía otras alternativas y, por lo tanto, probablemente podría defenderse ante cualquier ardid. No obstante, fue engañado por Laván, quien se aprovechó indebidamente

del fruto de sus labores. Después de una estadía de veinte años al lado de Laván, Yaacov retornó a la tierra de sus ancestros.

Según la opinión de los jajamim, Yaacov nunca se contagió de las inmoralidades de su tío. Identifican la frase im Laván “garti” con las 613 mitsvot que observó. A pesar de que vio el ejemplo de Laván, se mantuvo fiel a las enseñanzas de Yitsjak. Sin embargo, el texto bíblico informa que cuando Yaacov se residenció nuevamente en la tierra de Israel y quería gozar de la tranquilidad y del sosiego, comenzó el drama entre sus hijos: la envidia y rivalidad que ocasionó la “venta” de uno de los hermanos, Yosef. Aunque Yaacov no se contagió de la inmoralidad de Laván, sus hijos, en cambio, no salieron ilesos de la experiencia. Los celos que surgieron entre los hermanos fueron una consecuencia del ejemplo que observaron en el hogar de Laván y que ahora reproducían en su relación.

Es posible que en el proceso de la construcción de una nación sean necesarias –y tal vez indispensable– las diferencias de opinión y la adversidad. Sin el período posterior de esclavitud en Egipto, que tuvo su inició con la “venta” de Yosef, nunca se hubiera consolidado el pueblo hebreo, que ha resistido milenios de exilio y nunca ha perdido su identidad.

La adversidad es el crisol en el cual se forja el carácter nacional, mientras que la misión de la propagación del ideal monoteísta de los patriarcas es el acicate que hace surgir la

energía indispensable para alcanzar el destino: una nación cuya tarea es ser or lagoyim, un faro para la Humanidad.

GENESIS XXV:19-XXVIII:9

RIVALRY AS A SPUR

The events that accompanied the lives of the three patriarchs demonstrate their individuality and allow us to study the contrast between their personalities. Although Avaham (Abraham), the first of these, was the great iconoclast, renewer, and promoter of faith in one God, each of these fathers of the Jewish nation contributed with his own characteristics and through his experiences.

While Avraham and Yaakov (Jacob) had more than one wife, the middle patriarch, Yitschak (Isaac), married only Rivkah (Rebecca). Thus, the rivalry that later existed between their twin sons Esav (Esau) and Yaakovdid not have the additional ingredient of a possible rivalry between their respective mothers:

it was a consequence of the diversity of their personalities.

Three matriarchs had difficulty conceiving: Sarah, Rivkah, and Rachel. The only one who did not openly protest this condition was Rivkah: she only asked Isaac to  implore God so that she could leave in state.

The birth of the matriarchs’ children was accompanied by joy and an explanation of the meaning of their respective names. In Rivka’s case, the pregnancy presented difficulties. Even in the mother’s womb, the twins caused distress to the mother-to-be. The future conflict was foreseen, because the confrontation began in the womb. The initial rivalry between the brothers will result in a struggle between the two nations that would emerge from these twins.

Esav and Yaakov represent two lifestyles, two opposing philosophies, with their respective

values and appreciations about the destiny of man. Considering that rivalry between twins begins before their birth, how can Esav be singled out or blamed  for his behavior? There were genetic factors that determined this in advance.

Perhaps the Torah (Pentateuch) wishes to prove that conflict and rivalry are not in and of themselves negative. On the contrary, the confrontation between ideas and the possibility of choosing between alternatives are the leaven that stimulates growth.

Because of his natural shyness and because he had been the “object” of the Akedah (binding of Yitschak as a possible sacrifice), at which point, with or without his consent, he would be offered on an altar, Yitschak admired his son Esau’s courage, his hunting prowess, his apparent bravery, and his physical strength. To Yitschak, with his basically passive and thoughtful personality, Esav represented initiative and vigor, qualities that he obviously lacked. 

The characteristics of Esav had to be contrasted with the qualities of Yaakov, the studious and respectful young man, but who, however, when the time came to obtain the father’s blessing, participated directly in the artifice that was staged to deceive the father. 

For Yitschak to recognize Rivka’s intuitive wisdom, he had to learn to differentiate and discern between the personalities of their two children. Yaakov and Esav do not represent two totally different personalities. It should not be forgotten that the parents shared and the social environment, in addition to the mother’s placenta.

They had many common characteristics, because Esav also demonstrated, on several occasions, paternal respect. We are facing a situation of emphasis: a hierarchy of priorities that eventually concludes in a transition from the quantitative to the qualitative and that, therefore, draws the character of the person. Esav becomes the hunter par excellence, cultivating the notion that the will is imposed through force, while Yaakovdevelops and sharpen the art of discussion and argument. Tolerates and understands individual differences among their children.

Even after learning of the terrible event of the “sale” into slavery of his favorite son Yosef (Joseph), he does not disinherit the brothers, but rather attracts them and brings them closer, perhaps recognizing the ingredient of his own guilt in the process of the “sale”: having demonstrated an affective preference for one of the sons, for Yosef.

Each of the patriarchs contributes, with his personality, a paradigm and example. Jealousy and rivalries within their families produce confrontations and crises that have the potential to turn into hatreds that will be transmitted from generation to generation, but that can also have the opposite effect: to bring together and cement human relationships that have experienced empty and meaningless alternatives.

GÉNESIS XXV:19-XXVIII:9

LA RIVALIDAD COMO ACICATE

Los eventos que acompañaron la vida de los tres patriarcas demuestran su individualidad y permite estudiar el contraste entre sus personalidades. Aunque Avaham, el primero de ellos, fue el gran iconoclasta, renovador y propulsor de la fe en un solo Dios, cada uno de estos padres de la nación judía contribuyó con características propias y a través de sus experiencias.

Mientras que Avraham y Yaacov tuvieron más de una esposa, el patriarca del medio, Yitsjak, se casó únicamente con Rivká. Por ello, la rivalidad que luego existió entre sus hijos mellizos Esav y Yaacov no tuvo el ingrediente adicional de una posible rivalidad entre sus respectivas madres:

era una consecuencia de la diversidad de sus personalidades.

Tres matriarcas tuvieron dificultades en concebir: Sará, Rivká y Rajel. La única que no protestó abiertamente por esta condición fue Rivká: solo le pidió a Yitsjak que implorase a Dios para que pudiera salir en estado.

El nacimiento de los hijos de las matriarcas estuvo acompañado por la alegría y una explicación sobre del significado de sus respectivos nombres. En el caso de Rivká, el embarazo presentó dificultades. Incluso en las entrañas de la madre, los mellizos causaron angustia a la futura madre. Se avizoraba el conflicto futuro, porque el enfrentamiento comenzó en el vientre. La rivalidad inicial entre los hermanos se traducirá en una pugna entre las dos naciones que surgirían de estos mellizos.

Esav y Yaacov representan dos estilos de vida, dos filosofías opuestas, con sus respectivos

valores y apreciaciones acerca del destino del hombre. Si tomamos en cuenta que la rivalidad entre los mellizos comienza antes de su nacimiento, ¿cómo se puede señalar o culpar a Esav por su comportamiento? Está claro que hay factores genéticos que lo han determinado de antemano.

Tal vez la Torá desea probar que el conflicto y la rivalidad de por sí no son negativos. Al contrario, el enfrentamiento entre las ideas y la posibilidad de escogencia entre alternativas son la levadura que estimula el crecimiento.

Debido a su timidez natural y por haber sido el “objeto” de la Akedá, momento en el cual, con o sin su consentimiento, sería ofrendado sobre un altar, Yitsjak admiraba el arrojo de su hijo Esav, su destreza en la caza, su aparente valentía y su fortaleza física. Para Yitsjak, con su personalidad básicamente pasiva y reflexiva, Esav representaba iniciativa y vigor, cualidades que obviamente carecía. 

Las características de Esav tenían que ser contrastadas con las cualidades de Yaacov, el joven estudioso y respetuoso, pero que, sin embargo, cuando llegó el momento de obtener la bendición paternal, participó directamente en el artificio que se escenificó para engañar al padre. 

Para que Yitsjak reconociera la sabiduría intuitiva de Rivká, tenía que aprender a diferenciar

y discernir entre las personalidades de sus dos hijos. Yaacov y Esav no representan dos personalidades totalmente diferentes. No se debe olvidar que compartían los padres

y el entorno social, además de la placenta de la madre.

Tenían muchas características comunes, porque Esav también demostró, en varias ocasiones, el respeto paternal. Estamos frente a una situación de énfasis: una jerarquización de prioridades que eventualmente concluye en una transición de lo cuantitativo a lo cualitativo y que, por ende, dibuja el carácter de la persona. Esav se convierte en el cazador por excelencia, que cultiva la noción de que la voluntad se impone a través de la fuerza, mientras que Yaacov desarrolla

y afina el arte de la discusión y el argumento. Tolera y comprende las diferencias individuales entre sus hijos. 

Incluso, después de enterarse del terrible evento de la “venta” a la esclavitud de su hijo predilecto Yosef, no deshereda a los hermanos, más bien los atrae y acerca, reconociendo tal vez el ingrediente de su propia culpa en el proceso de la “venta”: haber demostrado una preferencia afectiva por uno de los hijos, por Yosef.

Cada uno de los patriarcas aporta, con su personalidad, un paradigma y ejemplo. Los celos y las rivalidades en el seno de sus familias producen enfrentamientos y crisis que tienen el potencial de convertirse en odios que se transmitirán de generación en generación, pero que también pueden un efecto opuesto: acercar y cimentar las relaciones humanas que han experimentado alternativas vacías y sin sentido.

GÉNESIS XXIII-XXV:18

CÓMO ESCOGER UNA FILOSOFÍA PARA LA VIDA

El estudio de la vida y de las características individuales de los patriarcas es fundamental para comprender las bases del judaísmo. La historia del judaísmo empieza con Avraham y continúa

con sus descendientes incluyendo el momento cuando empieza la construcción de la nación con el éxodo de Egipto.

El judaísmo hace su aparición en el escenario con el llamado de Dios a Avraham, Lej lejá: vete del hogar de tus padres a una tierra que te indicaré y paulatinamente se descubren cuáles son los elementos que distinguen a esta nueva filosofía de la vida con el potencial de convertirse en una teología.

Nuestros capítulos informan acerca de la muerte de Sará, la primera matriarca. La ausencia de detalles de su deceso es complementada por la Torá Oral, con el Midrash que revela que Sará murió al escuchar que su único hijo Yitsjak sería sacrificado como una ofrenda a Dios, en una difícilmente entendible demostración de un amor ilimitado por Dios. ¿Cuál fue la reacción de Avraham? ¿Acaso se sintió culpable de la muerte de su esposa y como consecuencia de ella entró en un estado de depresión aguda? Avraham llora por su mujer y reflexiona acerca de sus virtudes y luego enfrenta la realidad: se debe buscar un lugar apropiado para enterrar a Sará. Avraham adquiere un amplio terreno donde reposarán los restos mortales de los patriarcas y según una antigua tradición, allí también se encuentran enterrados Adam y Javá. Mearat Hamajpelá, es el nombre del lugar, el mausoleo de los patriarcas, ubicado en la ciudad de Jevrón y motivo de disputa actual entre Israel y los palestinos.

La muerte de Sará podía haber provocado una reacción de ascetismo, según observa el profesor Dov Schwartz. Existen costumbres primitivas según las cuales los sobrevivientes laceran sus cuerpos ante la muerte de un deudo. Una visión ascética implica probablemente la negación de la vida familiar y comunal, porque la concentración sobre la deidad debe ser total. Tal vez el sacerdocio cristiano, que exige el celibato, comparte esa noción. Es un comportamiento que niega el valor del mundo material para entronar el universo espiritual como alternativa única.

La idea bíblica del nazir, la persona que promete abstenerse de ciertos placeres como el consumo del producto de la vid, evadir el contacto con un muerto y no cortarse el pelo, apunta hacia una vida de privación material y una dedicación exclusiva hacia lo celestial.

Hay quienes señalan acertadamente que la Torá exige un sacrificio al término del período de nezirut, señalando de esta manera que el nazir no debe considerarse como un héroe espiritual, una condición óptima para el judío. A diferencia de Shimshón quien permaneció toda su vida bajo el signo de nezirut, el Talmud postula que, cuando no se especifica, el período de nezirut tiene la duración de un mes. O sea que, de acuerdo con el Talmud, ser nazir debe ser una elección pasajera.

Avraham no opta por convertir a Sará en un ícono, llora por ella, pero también la entierra; no la olvida, pero tampoco la venera. La muerte de su esposa no implica el fin de su historia familiar. Ahora tiene que dedicarse a Yitsjak, a la búsqueda de una esposa apropiada para su hijo, tiene que pensar en el futuro del pueblo que está engendrando. La dificultad de engendrar con Sará lo ha sensibilizado para valorar aún más a Yitsjak, quien a través de la Akedá demostró su disposición de ofrecer su vida en el servicio de Dios.

Al mismo tiempo, el Creador demostró que no deseaba el sacrificio humano. El judaísmo tendrá que escoger entre varias alternativas, inclinándose por una más que otra sin desechar alguna; entre el ascetismo y una vía que busca un término medio, y que acentúa el modelo espiritual pero no niega el valor del mundo material. El conflicto y la dicotomía ocasionados por tener que escoger entre el bien y el mal, el mundo secular y el entorno espiritual, el interés propio y el altruismo, y la cobardía y la valentía, es el fermento catalítico que obliga a pensar y reflexionar, a la continúa búsqueda e identificación del sendero que debe servir para el crecimiento y desarrollo espiritual que comenzó con Avraham y que continúa hasta el presente. Vivir es buscar. En el Más Allá se encuentra una contemplación de la radiante Presencia de Dios.

GENESIS XXIII-XXV:18

HOW TO CHOOSE A PHILOSOPHY FOR LIFE

The study of the life and individual characteristics of the patriarchs is fundamental to understanding the foundations of Judaism. The history of Judaism begins with Avraham (Abraham) and continues

with their descendants including the moment when nation-building begins with the exodus from Egypt.

Judaism makes its appearance on the stage with God’s call to Avraham, Lech Lecha: go from the home of your fathers to a land that I will indicate to you and gradually discover what are the elements that distinguish this new philosophy of life with the potential to become a theology.

Our chapters report on the death of Sarah, the first matriarch. The absence of details of his death is supplemented by the Oral Torah, with the Midrash revealing that Sarah died upon hearing that her only son Yitschak(Isaac) would be sacrificed as an offering to God, in a hardly comprehensible demonstration of boundless love for God. 

Did Avraham feel guilty about his wife’s death and as a result went into a state of acute depression? Avraham weeps for his wife and reflects on her virtues and then faces the reality: a suitable place must be found to bury Sarah. Avraham acquires a large plot of land where the mortal remains of the patriarchs will rest and according to an ancient tradition, Adam and Chava (Eve) are also buried there. Me’arat Hamachpelah is the name of the place, the mausoleum of the patriarchs, located in the city of Chevron,a reason for the current dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.

Sarah’s death  may have provoked a reaction of asceticism, Professor Dov Schwartz observes. There are primitive customs according to which survivors lacerate their bodies upon the death of a bereaved. An ascetic view probably implies the denial of family and communal life, because the concentration on the deity must be total. Perhaps the Christian priesthood, which demands celibacy, shares that notion. It is a behavior that denies the value of the material world to enthrone the spiritual universe as the only alternative.

The biblical idea of the Nazir, the person who promises to abstain from certain pleasures such as the consumption of the product of the vine, to avoid contact with a dead person, and not to cut his hair, points to a life of material deprivation and an exclusive dedication to the heavenly.

There are those who rightly point out that the Torah (Pentateuch) requires a sacrifice at the end of the Nezirut period, thus pointing out that the Nazirshould not be considered a spiritual hero, an optimal condition for the Jew. Unlike Shimshon (Samson) who remained all his life under the sign of Nezirut, the Talmud (Oral Law) postulates that, when not specified, the period of Nezirut lasts for one month. So, according to the Talmud, being  a Nazir must be a temporary choice.

Avraham does not choose to make  Sarah an icon, he weeps for her, but he also buries her; he does not forget her, but he does not venerate her either. The death of his wife does not imply the end of his family history. Now he must devote himself to Yitschak, to the search for a suitable wife for his son, he must think about the future of the people he is fathering. The difficulty of having a child with Sarah has sensitized him to value Isaac even more, who through Akedah demonstrated his willingness to offer his life in the service of God.

At the same time, the Creator showed that He did not desire human sacrifice. Judaism will have to choose between several alternatives, leaning towards one more than the other without discarding any; between asceticism and a path that seeks a middle ground, and that accentuates the spiritual model but does not deny the value of the material world. The conflict and dichotomy caused by having to choose between good and evil, the secular world and the spiritual environment, self-interest and altruism, and cowardice and courage, is the catalytic ferment that compels us to think and reflect, to continually search for and identify the path that should serve for the spiritual growth and development that began with Avraham and that continues to the present. To live is to seek. In the Hereafter is a contemplation of the radiant Presence of God.

GÉNESIS XVIII:1-XXII:24

ENTRE HOMBRES Y ÁNGELES

El texto bíblico muestra al patriarca Avraham sentado delante de su carpa kejom hayom, en el calor del día. Dios había despejado los cielos para que el calor del mediodía obligara a los viajeros a buscar refugio; de esa manera aprovecharían la hospitalidad del patriarca Avraham, quien a su vez se alegraría al verlos y olvidaría los dolores que sufría debido a la circuncisión que se había practicado tres días antes. Dios había aparecido ante Avraham cuando se presentaron tres ángeles en la forma de hombres. Avraham se levantó para recibir a sus visitantes y los jajamim cuestionaron la actitud del patriarca, que abandonó la presencia divina para dar la bienvenida a sus visitantes. De allí deducen los jajamim que recibir una visita, atender a un viajero, es más

importante que estar en la presencia de Dios.

Para Maimónides, el recibimiento de huéspedes es un motivo insuficiente para abandonar la presencia de Dios. Varias normas legales enseñan lo contrario. Cuando se recita la Amidá, por ejemplo, no se debe responder al saludo del rey porque constituiría una interrupción de la oración que exige una concentración absoluta. Incluso si se enrollara una serpiente sobre la pierna de la persona, ésta no debe interrumpir la recitación de la Amidá, porque durante la plegaria la persona se encuentra en la presencia de Dios. Dado que nuestro texto reza que Dios había aparecido ante Avraham, ¿cómo se puede explicar que el patriarca deje a Dios de lado y se aproxime a los potenciales huéspedes?

Para resolver el problema, Maimónides sugiere que este episodio ocurrió en la mente del patriarca. Porque incluso Dios se presenta a la luz del día, hecho que exige el grado mayor de profecía que solamente poseía Moshé, el maestro del pueblo hebreo y el profeta magno de Israel.

Al recibir a sus huéspedes, Avraham y su familia se preocuparon por sus necesidades higiénicas, procurándoles lo necesario para que lavaran sus pies, y les prepararon una suntuosa comida. Este hecho presenta una nueva dificultad, porque los ángeles de Dios ni comen ni beben. El exégeta Rashí opina que en realidad no comieron, sólo fingieron que estaban comiendo y bebiendo. En otros episodios bíblicos constatamos que los ángeles no comen, tal como revela

un episodio con Manóaj, el padre de Shimshón.

De acuerdo con Maimónides, esta dificultad se resuelve de inmediato porque el episodio existió solamente en el intelecto de Avraham; de ahí la inexactitud con referencia a la comida de los ángeles. Porque los sueños, además del mensaje fundamental que representan, pueden contener falsedades.

Es posible que Maimónides no se sintiera cómodo con la idea de la existencia de seres angelicales y prefiriera limitarlos a la imaginación del patriarca. Por otro lado, la narración

bíblica testimonia que dos de estos ángeles continúan con su misión de salvar a Lot, el sobrino de Avraham, y destruir las ciudades Sedom y Amorá. Para Maimónides era preferible encontrar una explicación racional para los hechos y sólo en última instancia estaba dispuesto a recurrir

a la postulación de la existencia de los ángeles.

¿Qué son los ángeles? La respuesta más directa es que son emisarios de Dios que tienen una faena muy específica. Un ángel no hace más de una tarea; por lo tanto, Dios tuvo que enviar tres ángeles: uno para curar a Avraham y anunciar el nacimiento de Yitsjak, el segundo para salvar a Lot y su familia, y el tercero para destruir las ciudades cuyos habitantes se habían pervertido totalmente. Los ángeles carecen de voluntad propia y automáticamente obedecen el instructivo divino. Por ello, los seres humanos están en un nivel superior cuando sirven a Dios, porque lo hacen en el ejercicio de su libre albedrío.

Sin embargo, se puede aprender de estos seres celestiales que la obediencia a Dios debe ser inequívoca y que, en el momento de cumplir una mitsvá, esa tarea debe absorber totalmente la atención de la persona.

GENESIS XVIII:1-XXII:24

BETWEEN MEN AND ANGELS

The biblical text shows the patriarch Avraham (Abraham) sitting in front of his tent, Kechom hayom, in the heat of the day. God had cleared the heavens so that the midday heat would compel travelers to seek shelter. In this way they would benefit from the hospitality of Patriarch Avraham, who in turn would be happy to see them and forget the pains he suffered due to the circumcision that had been performed three days earlier. God had appeared before Avraham when three angels appeared in the form of men. Avraham rose to greet his visitors and the Chachamim (Sages) questioned the attitude of the patriarch, who abandoned the divine presence to welcome his visitors. From this the Chachamim deduce that receiving a visitor, attending to a traveler, is more important than to be in the presence of God.

For Maimonides, the reception of guests is an insufficient reason to abandon the presence of God. Several legal regulations teach the opposite. When reciting the Amidah (Central silent prayer),for example, one should not respond to the king’s greeting because it would constitute an interruption of the prayer that requires absolute concentration. Even if a snake is coiled around a person’s leg, he should not interrupt the recitation of the Amidah, because during the prayer the person is in the presence of HaShem (God). Since our text says that HaShem had appeared to Avraham, how can we explain the patriarch leaving God aside and approaching potential guests?

To solve the problem, Maimonides suggests that this episode occurred in the patriarch’s mind. For even HaShem appears in the light of day, a fact that demands the highest degree of prophecy possessed only by Moshe (Moses), the teacher of the Hebrew people and the great prophet of Israel.

Upon receiving his guests, Avraham and his family provided them with the necessities to wash their feet and prepared a sumptuous meal for them. This fact presents a new difficulty, because the angels of God neither eat nor drink. The exegete Rashi is of the opinion that they did not actually eat, they only pretended that they were eating and drinking. In other biblical episodes we note that angels do not eat, as revealed by the

an episode with Manoah, Shimshon’s (Samson’s) father.

According to Maimonides, this difficulty is immediately resolved because the episode existed only in Avraham‘s intellect,hence the inaccuracy with reference to the food of the angels. Because dreams, in addition to the fundamental message they represent, can contain falsehoods.

Maimonides may  not have been comfortable with the idea of the existence of angelic beings and preferred to limit them to the patriarch’s imagination. On the other hand, the Biblical narrationtestifies that two of these angels continue their mission to save Lot, Avraham’s nephew, and destroy the cities of Sedom(Sodom) and Amorah (Gomorrah). For Maimonides it was preferable to find a rational explanation for the facts and only ultimately was he willing to resort to the postulation of the existence of angels.

What are angels? The most direct answer is that they are emissaries of God who have a very specific task. An angel does not do more than one task; therefore, God had to send three angels: one to heal Avraham and announce the birth of Yitschak(Isaac), the second to save Lot and his family, and the third to destroy the cities whose inhabitants had become totally perverted. Angels lack a will of their own and automatically obey divine instruction. Therefore, human beings are on a higher level when they serve God, because they do so in the exercise of their free will.

However, one can learn from these heavenly beings that obedience to God must be unequivocal and that, at the time of fulfilling a Mitzvah (religious instruction), that task must fully absorb the person’s attention.