GÉNESIS XLI:1-XLIV:17

EL MILAGRO EN EL JUDAÍSMO

Nuestros capítulos coinciden con la festividad de Januká, fecha que celebra el nes, el milagro que Dios hizo para que los pocos pudieran vencer a los muchos, los débiles pudieran dominar a los fuertes. Se debe destacar que el nes no es un evento dominante en el judaísmo. Al contrario, la intervención divina a través del milagro constituye una interrupción del orden de la naturaleza. Descomunal, por ejemplo, es el hecho de que el sol salga y se ponga todos los días; eso constituye el nes, el milagro. Por lo tanto, cuando Yehoshua exclamó shémesh

beguivón dom, al implorar que el sol no cayera para permitir que sus ejércitos obtuvieran la victoria gracias a la luz del día, estaba comprometiendo la ley de la naturaleza. 

Al postular la existencia de un solo Dios, el judaísmo afirma que existe una voluntad única que rige el comportamiento de la naturaleza, regula la trayectoria celestial de los astros, determina que el caballo procree otro caballo y no una vaca, que el manzano produzca manzanas y no peras. Mientras que el milagro manifiesta la preocupación divina por el destino del hombre a quien libera de un aprieto a través del hecho extraordinario, extra-natura, al mismo tiempo surge el riesgo de que la persona se apoye en el milagro en el futuro, deje de trabajar y producir y presuponga que Dios solucionará el problema.

La “mano” de Dios está presente en el desarrollo del drama entre Yosef y sus hermanos, el tema fundamental del texto bíblico semanal. Sin embargo, luce con absoluta prominencia

la inteligencia de Yosef. No obstante, que ahora se encuentra bajo el yugo de la esclavitud, no sucumbe ni menosprecia sus talentos: los utiliza para la construcción.

Mientras que en el pasado el sueño había sido la causa que condujo al conflicto y produjo el odio de sus hermanos, ahora aprovecha sus capacidades para salir del apuro del encarcelamiento y logra luego una posición clave en la corte del faraón.

El milagro es un trampolín que promueve una respuesta humana a una situación. No es la solución. A fin de cuentas, la persona tiene que enfrentar la situación. El drama de los hermanos conduce ineluctablemente al encuentro después de años de separación. El odio tendrá que ser resuelto por ellos, ningún milagro lo eliminará: tendrán que pasar

por un proceso de remordimiento, teshuvá por el crimen que habían cometido.

El nes de Januká ocurre como una culminación de los años de lucha, por no claudicar frente al poderoso ejército sirio. El milagro auténtico de Januká es que Matityahu y sus hijos, los Jashmonaim, no perdieron la esperanza en la victoria porque estaban seguros de la justicia de su causa. El hecho de que el aceite de la Menorá no se agotara para dar tiempo suficiente para producir nuevas cantidades bajo la mirada de los Kohanim, sirvió para profundizar la fe, otorgó

mayor confianza en la proeza de Yehudá HaMacabí y sus hermanos, que devolvieron la soberanía al pueblo judío. El nesno fue estipulado por el judaísmo como un sustituto de la acción humana. El milagro puede ser una solución momentánea cuando no se avizora una solución.

Durante el trágico período del Holocausto, las víctimas oraban por algún milagro que produjera una respuesta contundente humana, el despertar de una conciencia universal que

reaccionara frente a la inhumanidad nazi. El milagro es una respuesta insuficiente. No obstante que Dios hizo llover manádel cielo para alimentar a los hebreos durante su travesía por el desierto, el pueblo se quejó por no tener carne. El maná impidió que sucumbieran por el hambre, pero no satisfizo el apetito. La milagrosa partición de las aguas del Mar Rojo permitió el escape de la persecución de las hordas del faraón.

Faltarían aún cuarenta años en el desierto, período de conflicto y peligros, incertidumbre y luchas internas que forjaron el carácter de una nación. El nes hizo posible el desarrollo futuro que fue el resultado del empeño y la perseverancia del colectivo.

GENESIS XLI:1-XLIV:17

THE MIRACLE IN JUDAISM

Our chapters coincide with the holiday of Hanukkah, a date that celebrates the Nes, the miracle that God performed so that the few could overcome the many, the weak could dominate the strong. It should be noted that the Nes is not a dominant event in Judaism. On the contrary, divine intervention through miracles constitutes a disruption of the order of nature. Huge, for example, is the fact that the sun rises and sets every day; That is the Nes, the miracle. Therefore, when Yehoshuaexclaimed Shemesh Begivon Dom, by imploring that the sun would not go down to allow his armies to gain victory thanks to daylight, was compromising the law of nature. 

By postulating the existence of a single God, Judaism affirms that there is a single will that governs the behavior of nature, regulates the celestial trajectory of the stars, determines that the horse produces another horse and not a cow, that the apple tree produces apples and not pears. While the miracle manifests the divine concern for the destiny of man whom he frees from a predicament through the extraordinary, extra-natural event, at the same time there is a risk that the person will rely on the miracle in the future, stop working and producing, and presuppose that God will solve the problem.

The “hand” of God is present in the unfolding of the drama between Yosef (Josepht) and his brothers, the fundamental theme of the weekly biblical text. However, it allows to shinewith absolute prominence the intelligence of Yosef. Yosef, who is now under the yoke of slavery, does not succumb or despise his talents: he uses them for construction.

While in the past, dreams had been the cause that led to the conflict and produced the hatred of his brothers, now he takes advantage of his abilities in this area, to get out of the predicament of imprisonment and then achieves a key position in the court of the pharaoh.

The miracle is a springboard that promotes a human response to a situation. It is not the solution. At the end of the day, the person must face the situation. The drama of the brothers leads ineluctably to the meeting after years of separation. Hatred will have to be resolved by them, no miracle will eliminate it: they will have to pass from a process of remorse to Teshuvah(repentance) for the crime they committed.

The Nes of Hanukkah occurs as a culmination of the years of struggle, not to give in to the powerful Syrian army. The real miracle of Hanukkah is that Matityahu and his sons, the Hashmonaim, did not lose hope in victory because they were sure of the justice of their cause. The fact that the oil of the Menorah (Candelabrum) was not exhausted to allow sufficient time to produce new quantities under the gaze of the Kohanim(Priests), served to deepen the faith, granted greater confidence in the feat of Yehuda HaMaccabi and his brothers, who restored sovereignty to the Jewish people. The Nes was not stipulated by Judaism as a substitute for human action. The miracle can be a momentary solution when no solution is in sight.

During the tragic period of the Holocaust, victims prayed for some miracle that would produce a forceful human response, the awakening of a universal conscience that would react to Nazi inhumanity. The miracle is an insufficient answer. Even though God rained Man (manna) from heaven to feed the Hebrews during their journey through the wilderness, the people complained that they had no meat. The Man prevented them from succumbing to hunger, but it did not satisfy their appetite. The miraculous parting of the waters of the Red Sea allowed escape from the pursuit of Pharaoh’s hordes, but they later had to fight Amalek.

Forty years would still be left in the desert, a period of conflict and danger, uncertainty and internal strife that forged the character of a nation. The Nes made possible the future development that was the result of the commitment and perseverance of the collective.

GÉNESIS XXXVII:1-XL:23

EL ETERNO COMBATE ENTRE EL AMOR Y EL ODIO

La visión profética inspirada en la revelación de la voluntad divina está entrelazada con el desarrollo de los eventos, que, a su vez, pronostica la inevitabilidad de los sucesos. Este

hecho colide con el libre albedrío del hombre, quien tiene que caminar de acuerdo con una trayectoria trazada de antemano.

Al vaticinarle Dios a Avraham “Tu simiente y los hijos de tus hijos serán extraños, desconocidos en una tierra ajena donde serán esclavizados y oprimidos durante cuatrocientos años”, esta predicción obliga a que suceda una serie de eventos que conducirán a la esclavitud egipcia. Dentro de este escenario, ¿dónde se ubica el libre albedrío? Tal vez en la calidad y especificidad de los sucesos, aunque éstos tengan que ocurrir en el escenario anticipado.

El destino trazado para el exilio se cumple por medio del tema central de nuestros capítulos, que es la relación colmada de celos y rivalidad entre Yosef y sus hermanos. Relación que se alimenta por el excesivo amor y preferencia de Yaacov por Yosef en detrimento de sus otros hijos. Sin embargo, el elemento que hilvana la sucesión de los hechos será los sueños: los sueños de grandeza de Yosef, los sueños de quien le servía la copa de vino al faraón y de su panadero y, finalmente, el sueño crucial del faraón.

El texto bíblico recopila el desarrollo progresivo de la relación fraternal. Uno de los primeros episodios bíblicos describe el asesinato de Hével perpetrado por Kayin. Luego viene el destierro de Yishmael para que no ejerza una influencia negativa sobre su hermano Yitsjak. Seguido por la rivalidad de Esav con Yaacov que se manifiesta a través del engaño que produce la amenaza del asesinato. Culmina con la envidia y los celos de los hermanos hacia Yosef, el primogénito de Rajel, la más amada esposa de Yaacov.

Dado que por decisión divina el desarrollo de los hechos obligatoriamente tiene que conducir al destierro de la Tierra Prometida, también sirve para destacar la psicología y la conducta humana en circunstancias de crisis. Los celos producen un odio insondable que ciega a la persona e impide que reconozca la enormidad de la injusticia de su comportamiento posterior. La profesora Yael Shemesh señala que la Torá relata que, después de arrojar a Yosef a una muerte segura en un pozo, los hermanos se sientan a comer, indiferentes a sus súplicas y llanto. 

Siglos más tarde, Ajashverosh y Hamán también participarán de una comida después de decidir la muerte de los judíos a través de un sorteo. Tal como se señala, la intensidad del odio es mucho mayor que la profundidad del amor. Habrán de pasar muchos años después de tener que postrarse ante Yosef para obtener las provisiones de alimentos; recién entonces nacerá el sentimiento de remordimiento de los hermanos, quienes reconocerán la gran falta que cometieron contra Yosef.

Desde cierta perspectiva, la saga de Yosef y sus hermanos es una enseñanza moral sobre la retribución: el castigo que ineluctablemente recibe la persona por cometer una inmoralidad. Pero hay otra enseñanza: el crimen no produce el resultado deseado. Aunque la “venta” de Yosef lo hace desaparecer del escenario familiar, no se produce el anticipado acercamiento de Yaacov a los hermanos. Al contrario, el padre centra ahora sus sentimientos en el dolor y el luto por la pérdida de Yosef, no puede borrarlo de su memoria, porque el porte y la “belleza” de este hijo están directamente unidos al recuerdo de su preferida, Rajel. Sin estar presente, Yosef continúa siendo el hijo preferido. Pese al favoritismo que Yaacov demuestra, Yosefno es una figura que, en sus años de juventud, pueda admirarse con facilidad. Es claramente engreído, enamorado de sí mismo, un joven que informa al padre acerca de las debilidades de sus hermanos para acentuar las grietas de sus caracteres.

La educación de Yosef y el afinamiento del temple de su fibra moral exigen el alejamiento de la protección paternal. Tiene que ir al destierro y aprender a valerse por sí mismo, aprovechar su ingenio para evolucionar moralmente. Egipto se convierte en el laboratorio personal de Yosef.

La tentación de la esposa de Potífar y la pasantía por las cárceles del faraón servirán de yunque para los golpes que le inflige el destino. La inseguridad y el peligro, la incertidumbre y las incógnitas, no producen la desesperación del joven mimado. Al contrario, sale a relucir el refinado carácter de su personalidad que había estado sumido en la vanidad. Incluso, cuando reconoce a sus hermanos, que tienen que postrarse ante él y rogar por el sustento indispensable en los años de hambruna que había azotado a toda la región, no permite que el deseo de venganza se apodere de sus sentimientos. Comprende que los eventos se desarrollaron por la voluntad de Dios: era necesario el destierro para que naciera un pueblo, era necesario el exilio del hogar paternal para que él, Yosef, pudiera convertirse en el primogénito real, padre de dos tribus de Israel: Efráyim y Menashé.

GENESIS XXXVII:1-XL:23

THE ETERNAL COMBAT BETWEEN LOVE AND HATE

The prophetic vision inspired by the revelation of the divine will is intertwined with the unfolding of events, which, in turn, foretells the inevitability of events. This fact collides with the free will of man, who must walk according to a trajectory traced in advance.

As God foretells Avraham (Abraham) “Your seed and your children’s children will be strangers, unknown in a foreign land where they will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years,” this prediction forces a series of events to take place that will lead to Egyptian slavery. Within this scenario, where does free will stand? Perhaps in the quality and specificity of the events, even if they must occur in the anticipated scenario.

The destiny laid out for exile is fulfilled through the central theme of our chapters, which is the jealousy and rivalry relationship between Yosef (Joseph) and his brothers. A relationship that is fueled by Yaakov’s (Jacob’s) excessive love and preference for Yosef to the detriment of his other sons. However, the element that weaves together the succession of events will be dreams: Yosef’s dreams of grandeur, the dreams of the one who served Pharaoh’s cup of wine and his baker and, finally, Pharaoh’s crucial dream.

The biblical text compiles the progressive development of the brotherly relationship. One of the earliest biblical episodes describes the murder of Hevel (Abel) by Kayin (Cain). Then comes the banishment of Yishmael (Ishmael) so that he will not exert a negative influence on his brother Yitschak (Isaac).Followed by Esav’s (Esau’s) rivalry with Yaakov that manifests itself through deception that produces the threat of murder. It culminates in the brothers’ envy and jealousy of Yosef, the firstborn of Rachel, Yaakov’s most beloved wife.

Since by divine decision the development of events must necessarily lead to banishment from the Promised Land, it also serves to highlight psychology and human behavior in circumstances of crisis. Jealousy produces an unfathomable hatred that blinds the person and prevents him from recognizing the enormity of the injustice of his subsequent behavior. Professor Yael Shemesh notes that the Torah (Pentateuch) relates that, after throwing Yosef to certain death in a well, the brothers sit down to eat, indifferent to his pleas and weeping. 

Centuries later, Achashverosh (Ahasuerus) and Haman(Hamman) will also partake of a meal after deciding the death of the Jews through a lottery, as told in the Purim story. As noted, the intensity of hatred is far greater than the depth of love. Many years will pass after having to prostrate themselves before Yosef to obtain food supplies; only then will the feeling of remorse be born of the brothers, who will recognize the great fault they committed against Yosef.

From a certain perspective, the saga of Yosef and his brothers is a moral teaching about retribution: the punishment that ineluctably receives a person for committing an immorality. But there is another lesson: crime does not produce the desired result. Although the “sale” of Yosef makes him disappear from the family scene, Yaakov’s anticipated approach to the brothers does not occur. On the contrary, the father now focuses his feelings on the pain and mourning for the loss of Yosef, he cannot erase it from his memory, because the bearing and “beauty” of this son are directly linked to the memory of his favorite, Rachel. Without being present, Yosef continues to be the favorite son. Despite the favoritism that Yaakovdemonstrates, Yosef is not a figure who, in his younger years, can be easily admired. He is clearly conceited, in love with himself, a young man who informs his father about the weaknesses of his brothers to accentuate the cracks in their characters.

Yosef’s education and the refinement of the temper of his moral fiber demand he moves away from parental protection. He mustgo into exile and learn to fend for himself, to take advantage of his ingenuity to evolve morally. Egypt becomes Yosef’s personal laboratory.

The temptation of Potiphar’s wife  and the internship in Pharaoh’s prisons will serve as an anvil for the blows inflicted on him by fate. Insecurity and danger, uncertainty and unknowns, do not produce the desperation of the spoiled young man. On the contrary, the refined character of his personality that had been sunk in vanity comes to light. Even when he recognizes his brothers, who must prostrate themselves before him and beg for the indispensable sustenance in the years of famine that had struck the entire region, he does not allow the desire for revenge to take hold of his feelings. He understands that events unfolded by God’s will: banishment was necessary for a people to be born, exile from the parental home was necessary so that he, Yosef, could become the royal firstborn, father of two tribes of Israel: Efrayim (Ephraim) and Menashe(Manasseh).

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.