EXODUS I:1-VI:1
INDIVIDUALISM AND ASSIMILATION
The name of the person is not accidental; it usually manifests some basic characteristic of the individual. This is what the biblical text estimates. Starting with the first man, whose name reflected the fact that he was made from the earth.
His name is Adam, because adama means earth. The Hebrews were faithful to that tradition and did not change their names when they arrived in Mitzrayim, Egypt. Centuries later, when the time came for the exodus from those lands, we observe that they continued to keep their original names. This fact was one of the merits – or perhaps causes – of the exodus: they maintained their identity through name, they did not succumb to the temptation of assimilation. This idea is implicit in the first verse that reads: “Ele shemot… haba’im Mitzraima“, “These are the names of the sons of Yaakov, habaim, who come to Egypt”. In fact, the Hebrews had long since resided in that land; Therefore, the use of the word habaim, “who come”, as if it were an event that was taking place at that time, is surprising.
According to the Midrash, after Yosef’s death, the Hebrews lost influence in the court, and the Egyptians began to treat them as if they had arrived recently to the country.
Instead of referring to the attitude of the Egyptians, perhaps the word habaim alludes to the behavior of the Hebrews who did not assimilate into the environment and remained faithful to the tradition of the patriarchs, behaving as if they had arrived in Egypt in those days.
To maintain their individuality, with different names and clothing, traditions and language of their own, some Egyptians probably doubted the loyalty of the Hebrews. The figure of Yosef contradicts this argument, because thanks to his vision and managerial powers, Egypt was able to overcome the famine and help the entire region survive; notwithstanding the poverty of the seven-year crops, symbolized by the lean cows.
Yosef’s contribution was decisive, and his proven loyalty to the fate of the Egyptians led Pharaoh to appoint him as the regent of his court. It is worth reflecting on this issue: can a group make a greater contribution to the collective when it keeps its ancestral traditions intact, or when it is fully integrated into the majority? It can be argued that the cultural and intellectual heritage of society is directly proportional to diversity, to the specific and individual contributions of each of its members.
One of the fundamental reasons for Hebrew to maintain its identity and not assimilate into the environment is the mission that God entrusted to it: to be a light to the nations. This imperative will be explicitly mentioned in the Torah, which commands that the Hebrews should constitute a Mamlekhetkohanim vegoi kadosh, “a kingdom of priests and a sacred people.”
This mission or choice of the Hebrew people implies more than a distinction, the responsibility to serve as an example for other peoples. It is not a question of privilege, but of service.
However, it should be noted that not all the Hebrews in Egypt remained faithful to the tradition of the patriarchs. There are those who interpret the word vachamushim, used at the time of the exodus as indicating that only eḥad meḥamisha (“one in five”) left Egypt. Apparently, eighty percent of the Hebrews were fully integrated into the Egyptian environment, fully assimilated. Because the temptation to adopt the most important culture of the time, the Egyptian culture with its advances in astronomy and writing, invited the Hebrews to abandon the supposed primitivism of their monotheistic ideal.
The tension between integration and individualism is the theme that will accompany the Jewish people throughout history, in the events that led to the celebration of Purim and in the events that accompanied the rebellion of the Ḥashmona’im, events embodied in the holiday of Ḥanukkah. Even today, assimilation looks like the greatest threat to the survival of the Jewish people.
