VAERÁ_ÉXODO VI:2-IX:35

A través de una serie de Otot umoftim, señales y milagros, usualmente referidos como plagas, Dios liberó al pueblo hebreo de Egipto. Cada una de estas plagas tenía el propósito de demostrar la superioridad de Dios sobre el culto idólatra. Empezando con el río Nilo, que era adorado por los egipcios, conscientes de que su producción agrícola dependía de esta fuente de agua, y continuando con los animales que también eran deificados, las plagas demostraron que había una fuerza suprema, el Dios de los hebreos, que también era el Dios único que regía el destino de los egipcios y del universo creado por Él.

Estos eventos no podían ser explicados como fenómenos naturales porque la población hebrea no sufrió los mismos estragos. Las plagas tenían destinatarios selectivos. La plaga mayor, sin duda, fue la última: la muerte de los primogénitos, que convenció al Faraón para que, finalmente, permitiera el Éxodo del pueblo hebreo. En este caso, los primogénitos hebreos fueron absueltos de la muerte, pero solamente aquellos que tuvieron la audacia de sacrificar un cordero y pintar con su sangre los dinteles de sus hogares.

De esta manera se identificaban ante Dios para que el ángel de la muerte pasara de largo frente a sus hogares y demostraron su valentía ante los egipcios. Está claro que no todos los hebreos se arriesgaron, y en efecto, aquellos que no pintaron los umbrales de sus hogares con la sangre del sacrificio pascual perecieron, al igual que los primogénitos egipcios.

Algunos exégetas bíblicos dividen las primeras 9 plagas, que no lograron el objetivo deseado, en tres grupos de 3 plagas cada una. De acuerdo con su naturaleza, se pueden agrupar las plagas en pares. Algunas plagas atacaron a las bestias del campo, la sangre y las ranas emergieron del Nilo, la peste y las erupciones son enfermedades, el granizo y las langostas destruyeron la agricultura, las plagas de la oscuridad y los primogénitos están relacionadas con la muerte. 

Según el Midrash, los hebreos infames perecieron durante la plaga de la oscuridad para que los egipcios no fueran testigos de su castigo. La plaga decisiva fue la muerte de los primogénitos, que abarcó el hogar del Faraón. Solamente en esta última plaga tuvieron una participación los hebreos, al colocar la sangre del sacrificio pascual sobre sus umbrales. Para poder salir de Egipto y no retornar luego, los hebreos tenían que demostrar ante los egipcios y ante sí mismos que habían perdido el temor hacia sus capataces, al sacrificar a uno de sus dioses: la oveja.

Aunque el culto a Dios empezó formalmente con la revelación en el monte Sinaí, cuando los hebreos recibieron los Diez Mandamientos, su origen se encuentra en Egipto. La ofrenda del sacrificio pascual es la primera Mitsvá que cumplieron los hebreos; por ello, el gran comentarista Rashí cuestiona por qué no empezó la Biblia con el capítulo que hace referencia a esta Mitsvá, dado que la Torá contiene los instructivos rituales y morales que deben regir a las personas.

Mientras Moshé y Aharón producían los milagros que se tradujeron en las 10 Makot, plagas, para convencer al Faraón, los hechiceros y magos egipcios duplicaron casi todas estas proezas. De tal manera que la “mano fuerte” de Dios no era aparente. ¿Cuál era la diferencia entre los milagros producidos por Moshé y Aharón y las hechicerías de los magos egipcios? 

El rabino Yaacov Kaminetzky opina que para que tuviera validez moral, la decisión del Faraón habría de ser el resultado de su libre albedrío. Por lo tanto, Dios permitió que los magos egipcios imitaran los resultados obtenidos por Moshé y Aharón. De esta manera, el Faraón no actuaría porque se estaba enfrentando a un poder invencible, sino que permitió, o tal vez expulsó a los hebreos de Egipto, porque finalmente reconoció la existencia de un Dios único para todos los pueblos.

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.