Cada año volvemos a leer los cinco libros de la Torá. Por qué volver a leerlo por siglos, año tras año? Parte de esa explicación la comparto en este video. Muchas gracias por escuchar y leer mis publicaciones. Compartan con amigos y familiares. Comenten, pues disfruto mucho de leer sus ideas. Recuerden visitar www.pynchasbrener.com para encontrar todo lo que he producido en estos 8 años. La empresa productora que me apoya es www.bestshotproduction.com
YAACOV OR THE STRENGTH OF BEING
VAYETSE
Yaacov was forced to leave the parental home to avoid being murdered by his brother Esav for having snatched the paternal blessing through deception. Their mother, Rivka, who had devised the stratagem for Yaacov to obtain the blessing finally convinces her husband Yitschak, that Yaacov was the right person, who would guarantee the transmission of patriarchal teachings to future generations. It was now necessary for him to enter into marriage with a family member still residing in Haran, to prevent him from falling prey to one of the Canaanite women who would probably lead him to practice idolatry.
According to the biblical text, Yaacov was ” yoshev “; a young man used to the warmth of parental home, and now had to go into exile to find his destiny in the environment of relatives he did not know. In Haran, he would be deceived by his uncle Lavan, who would take advantage of the fruit of his labor in order to marry his two daughters, even though Yaacov only loved Rachel, the youngest daughter. Unlike Abraham, who had commissioned his faithful servant Eliezer to choose a suitable wife for Yitschak, the attitude of Yaacov's parents is different: they trust his judgment to select an appropriate partner that will ensure the survival of the monotheistic idea.
While Avraham was willing to offer Yitschak on an altar, he was not confident enough in his judgment to choose a life companion. According to
Bible interpreters, Yitschak was thirty-seven years old when he was “bound”; on the altar, which means that the father had not subdued a minor. Yitschak had consciously participated in God’s “test” of their obedience.
However, when it came to marriage, Avraham preferred to send Eliezer to find a wife for Yitschak, even though you can't transfer personal feeling and passion to another person. It is clear that if we consider that love is the fundamental ingredient for the choice of
a couple, Eliezer’s opinion should not have been decisive.
However, when you emphasize that virtues such as goodness and charity are the qualities that should predominate, then Eliezer could be more objective because emotion and personal passion would be absent.
Yaacov’scase is different. He could differentiate himself from human the character qualities of his brother Esav. He was aware of alternatives and would therefore probably withstand any ruse. Yet, he was tricked by Lavan, who took undue advantage of the fruit of his labors. After a stay of twenty years at the side of Lavan, Yaacov returned to the land of his ancestors. In the opinion of the chachamim, Yaacov was never infected with the immoralities of his uncle. They identify the numerical value of the phrase “I’m Laván”; with the 613 mitzvot, he observed. Although he saw the example of Lavan, he remained true to Yitschak's teachings.
The biblical text reports that when Yaacov returned to the land of Israel and wanted to enjoy tranquility and peace, he had to face the drama that was developing between his children: the envy and rivalry that caused the “sale”; of one of the brothers, Yosef. Although Yaacov did not absorb
Lavan immorality, his sons, on the other hand, did not emerge unscathed from the experience. The jealousy that arose among the brothers was a consequence of the example that they observed in Laván’s home and that now reproduced in their mutual relationship.
It is possible that in the process of building a nation there are necessary characteristics and perhaps indispensable. Namely differences of opinion, even adversity. Without the later period of slavery in Egypt, which began with the "sale" of Yosef, the Hebrew people would never have become consolidated, and, thereby, able to withstand millennia of exile without a loss of identity.
Adversity is the crucible in which national character is forged, while the mission of propagating the monotheistic ideal of the patriarchs is the spur that produces the necessary energy to reach its destination: a nation whose task is to be “or”a beacon for Humanity.
En Honor al Rabino Jonathan Sacks
Fallecimiento del Rabino Sacks
THE INCONESTABLE AFFINITY OF BROTHERHOOD
TOLDOT
God informed Rivka that she would be the mother of two nations, two kingdoms that would not share power, a struggle was unfolding, a kind of constant rivalry between the twins that were in her entrails. The ascent of one would imply the regression of the other. The forecast refers to the future incompatibility of these sons: Yaacov and Esav. Jewish tradition later identified Esav with Rome and even with Christianity.
Kayin and Hevel represent the primordial rivalry that stopped only with the murder of Hevel. The competition continued with Yitschak and Yishmael, although in this case, they were brothers only by their father, a fact that could explain partially the marked difference between their respective characters and behavior. In the case of Yaacov and Esav, they were not only children of the same father and mother, they were also twins, though obviously not identical.
The personality discrepancy exhibited by the siblings originates in the mother’s placenta, a fact that points to a Divine decision: Rivka will engender two typologies that will be in constant conflict with each other. That means that confrontation and rivalry are part of God’s plan for Humanity. These attitudes seem inevitable because they are an integral part of the genetic code of Humanity, which will intensify in the case of the patriarchs. In this sense, the prophet Malachi testifies: “After all, says the Lord, Esav is Yaacov’s brother. He accepted Yaacov while He rejected Esav. ” Inclination to evil, by both Esav and Yishmael, has been imposed beforehand, causing an adverse outcome for the Jewish people.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Vilna Gaon makes reference to an ancient Midrash which states that the head of Esav is buried in Mearat Hamachpela, the acquired lands by Avraham to bury Sarah, and that will later serve as an eternal resting place for the patriarchs. According to the Midrash, Esav does not only symbolize irrational force and aggressiveness.
There are positive and valuable elements in his personality that justify that his head rests on the same place that would serve as a burial ground for the founders of monotheism.
The Midrash establishes a dichotomy between the warrior body of Esav and his head that nourished from the holiness of Yitschak. Would that be the reason for Yitschak to be drawn to Esav? While Rivka`s judgment about the personality of Esav is based on his violent actions, Yitschak has a vision into the future and minimizes the importance of the extreme manly behavior of the young man who wishes to affirm his personality in the field through hunting. Yitschak’s blindness did not permit that he closely evaluate the behavior of his firstborn in daily life, because his penetrating future vision indicated to him that the fate of Humanity had to include the reconciliation of the brothers at the end of days.
Only Esav’s body was rebellious, while his head remained loyal to the teachings of the patriarch.
Judah Zoldan emphasizes that, according to the biblical prism, the Jewish people will not dominate other peoples. That is not their destiny. The task of the Jewish people is to be a beacon to indicate to the other nations the path of justice and solidarity with others. Esav does not represent insurmountable evil.
Perhaps there is no absolute wickedness within the bosom of Humanity, although the Nazi era formidable challenges this hypothesis.
The Torah testifies to the temporal reconciliation of the brothers: Yitschak and Yishmael, Yaacov and Esav who take care and participate together in the burial of their respective parents.
Episodes that point to the “end of history”, to the possibility that antagonisms and confrontations give way to the fraternity that must become a reality in a messianic age. Behold then that the advent of an era of tranquility and peace for Humanity depends upon men and women, on their fraternal behavior and solidarity with others. The initial condition of Kayin and Hevel, Yitschak and Yishmael, Yaacov and Esav is a brotherhood that for erroneous reasons gave way to divergence and a bitter conflict. The return to the roots will be based on their common origin, as in the aforementioned words of Malachi: “After all, says the Lord, Esav is the brother of Yaacov… ”.
Atrévete a Soñar
Comentando los sueños de Josef
HOW TO CHOOSE A PHILOSOPHY FOR LIFE
CHAYEI SARAH
The study of the life and individual characteristics of the Patriarchs are critical to understanding the foundations of Judaism.
The history of Judaism begins with Avraham and continues with his descendants including the time when nation-building begins with the exodus from Egypt. Judaism makes its appearance on stage with the call from God to Avraham, Lech Lecha: leave your parents’ home to a land that I will indicate to you and gradually you will discover which are the elements that distinguish this new philosophy from life with its potential to become a theology.
Our chapters report on the death of Sarah, the first matriarch. The absence of details of her death is complemented by the Oral Torah, with the Midrash which reveals that Sarah died upon hearing that her only son Yitschak would be sacrificed as an offering to God, in a hardly understandable demonstration of unlimited love for God. What was Avraham’s reaction? Did he feel guilty about the death of his wife and as a consequence of did he enter a state of acute depression? Avraham cries for his wife and reflects on her virtues and then faces reality: he must find an appropriate place to bury Sarah. Avraham acquires a large piece of land where the mortal remains of the patriarchs will rest and according to
ancient tradition, Adam and Chava are also buried there.
Mearat Hamachpela, is the name of the place, the Mausoleum of the Patriarchs, located in the city of Chevron that is an additional reason for the current disputes between Israel and the Palestinians. Sarah’s death could have provoked a reaction of asceticism, as Professor Dov Schwartz observes. There exist primitive customs according to which the survivors lacerate their bodies at the death of a family member.
An ascetic view probably implies a denial of the value of family and community life, because the concentration on the deity must be total. Perhaps the Christian priesthood, that demands celibacy, shares some of that notion. It is a behavior that denies the value of the material world in order to enthrone the spiritual universe as the only alternative.
The biblical idea of the Nazir, a person who promises to abstain from certain pleasures such as the consumption of the product of the vine, avoids contact with the dead and not cut their hair, points towards a life of material deprivation, and exclusive dedicatio to celestial matters.
Some, rightly point out that the Torah demands a sacrifice at the end of the Nezirut period, thereby signaling that the Nazir should not be considered a
spiritual hero, an optimal condition for the Jew. Unlike Shimshon who remained all his life under the sign of Nezirut, the Talmud postulates that, when not specified, the Nezirut period lasts for one month.
We can conclude that according to the Talmud, being a Nazir must be a temporary choice. Avraham does not choose to convert Sarah into an icon, he cries for her, but also buries her; he does not forget her, but neither venerates her. The death of his wife does not imply the end of family history. Now he has to dedicate himself to Yitschak, to the search of a suitable wife for his son. He has to think about the future of the people he is creating. The difficulty in procreating with Sarah has sensitized him to value even more Yitschak, who through the Akeda demonstrated his willingness to offer his life in the service of God.
At the same time, the Creator taught that he did not desire human sacrifice.
Judaism will have to choose between several alternatives, leaning towards one more than to the other without discarding any; between asceticism and a path that seeks a middle ground, 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 a spiritual environment, self-interest and altruism, cowardice and courage, is the catalytic ferment that forces one to think and reflect. It is a continuous search to identify the path that should serve for spiritual growth and development which began with Avraham and continues through the present. Living is searching. Contemplation is for the Hereafter where the task becomes the appreciation of the radiant Presence of God.
Los Nietos son Continuidad
THE AVRAHAM COUNSELORS
VAYERA
The Creator’s relationship with the first couple began with a stumbling block: disobedience. Maybe Adam and Chava wanted to demonstrate their autonomy and independence of judgment by disregarding the instruction not eating the fruit of the prohibited tree.
This rebellious attitude continued with their offspring until God decided to destroy all living beings, with the exception of one human: Noah and his immediate relatives.
The rainbow that the Creator unfolded after the Deluge became a symbol of a Brit, the covenant through which God promised not to repeat the total destruction of Humanity.
After this promise, we begin a new stage of humanity that quickly forgets the commitment to the Creator. This new beginning incorporates a set of seven rules of conduct that will ensure peaceful coexistence.
After ten generations, Avraham, the great iconoclast appears. He rejects the idolatry that had been introduced into the human race and preaches the existence of the only God.
Avraham’s mission is clear: he must leave the environment of his parents to go to a new land where he will create a new nation that will lift the banner of the only God, with the obvious consequence that all human beings come from the same root because the one and only Creator is their common father.
To symbolize this renewed covenant, God requires that Avraham and his offspring practice, this time not a symbolic Brit, but one expressed through circumcision.
Man will have to learn that sacrifice is indispensable, a person has to give of himself to establish any relevant relationship with God and fellow man.
Furthermore, the Brit will acquire greater significance with the “pact” on Mount Sinai, where an expanded set of six hundred and thirteen Mitsvot will form the basis of the relationship between God and the Jewish people.
According to the Midrash, Avraham consulted with three friends before practicing the Brit on his body. Aner warned him that the Brit would weaken him and therefore he would become vulnerable to his enemies, the monarchs he had recently defeated.
Perhaps Aner was referring to the fact that the Brit imposed moral obligations as well and Avraham’s enemies could infer, from now on, the limitations that would govern the behavior of the patriarch in any battle and take advantage of that knowledge.
Similarly, many enemies of democracy who use murder and terror, when they are captured, appeal to the rights that democracy grants, rights that they, in turn, deny to their victims. They take advantage of respect for life that rules the civilized world that is unwilling to use the methodology of terror. Were they to use these methods they would bestow a moral victory to those who want to deal a mortal blow to democracy.
Notwithstanding, Aner’s advice, Avraham submitted to the Brit because it would produce only momentary weakness, while the moral benefit would be permanent.
Avraham’s second counselor, Eshkol, argued that the blood loss that the Brit would produce could put the patriarch’s life in danger. This argument reminds us that all action carries risk. When a leader formulates a task and points a path to its achievement, at the same time, he assumes the risk of failure. The monotheistic idea that Avraham proposed had to deal with numerous vested interests, the idolatrous priesthood, and all who benefitted from that practice. Whether in a social, political, or economic way. Because renovation must meet a past that resists giving way to a different future.
The third recommendation came from Mamre, who argued that Avraham should have confidence in God, the God who had saved him from the furnaces of Nimrod and who had bestowed his victory over the four mighty kings.
Mamre was pointing to a fundamental principle of faith. Even in the presence of goodwill and the ability to face difficult scenarios, a human being requires Divine intervention. On the one hand, a human cannot refrain from fighting an enemy, one cannot relegate help and solidarity with others to the goodness of God. But at the same time, you have to be aware that, ultimately, God is the one who directs the destiny of History. A human being cannot desist from his responsibility and tasks, although he can never finish them on his own.
SPIRITUALITY SHOULD NOT BE COMPROMISED
LECH LECHA
The hero of these chapters is the patriarch Avraham who obeys God’s exhortation to leave the safety of his hometown and the warmth of his parents’ home to head to a new land which, at first, was not identified. The family initially heads to the city of Haran and only Avraham, his nephew Lot and their respective families continue the journey to the Promised Land, known in those days as Canaan.
Avraham is not the sole hero. His wife Sarai and his nephew Lot deserve honorable mention as well. Because they also made the decision to leave the comfort of a familiar environment and head to a strange and
possibly hostile land. This joint experience should have brought uncle and nephew closer together, both in a spiritual and in emotional way. Therefore, it is strange to witness a fight between their respective shepherds over lands and grass and then decide to separate. Avraham urges Lot to choose first and then he will take the opposite path. Initially, the monotheistic ideal had united them, now, the abundance of livestock produces separation.
Perhaps the first verse of our chapters needs to be better understood: Lech Lecha, “go away!”. Did Avraham have to break all ties with his relatives, including Lot? What had been the fundamental intention of the Divine instruction, when God commanded Avraham to abandon the home of his parents¿ Was it because he would not be able to consolidate his ideal in that environment, namely, the existence of only one God?
We must not forget that his nephew had lost his father and now he, his uncle Avraham had to become the surrogate father.
What was Lot’s fundamental motive to follow his uncle? Was it faith in God or an intriguing adventure? Or was it the unique family bond and security offered by the presence of Avraham?
The Midrash interprets the quarrel between Avraham’s shepherds
and Lot as a moral dispute. Lot’s shepherds were willing to seize the lands of the Canaanites by arguing that God had ceded these lands to Avraham, and since Lot was the rightful heir to the patriarch, his shepherds could take advantage of those lands immediately. The argument of Avraham’s shepherds, however, was that while the Canaanites inhabited the place, it was not appropriate to use what would legitimately belong to them in the future.
God had promised Avraham that he would be the father of a great nation, but his wife Sarai – a name that later would be changed by Sara did not conceive a descendant.
Avraham thought that perhaps his offspring would be produced through his nephew Lot and, therefore, considered that he should only separate from his father Terach and the rest of the family. Lot would be the exception.
While Lot appears as an integral part of the intimate surroundings of the patriarch, the abundance of possessions causes conflict. Their possessions are no longer held in common. Lot has his herdsmen and cattle and Avraham has his.
Is it possible that the abundant flow of goods was to cause a spiritual and emotional negative effect? Apparently yes.
While they shared possessions, they also shared ideals. However, once Lot gains financial independence also wants to assert his intellectual and spiritual independence.
In Avraham’s case, material goods play a secondary role. The fundamental motive of his life is his monotheistic ideal, for which he was willing to sacrifice his only child, as we will learn in future chapters. Spirituality could not be compromised.
The case of Lot is different. He shows his priorities by separating from Avraham and choosing the fertile valleys for his livestock, although the inhabitants of those places were steeped in idolatry and all kinds of sexual deviations. It is clear that the well-being and development of material goods are basic for Lot and are willing to take any spiritual risk in an effort to become a potentate of livestock.
The future of monotheism could not depend on the attitude of Lot. It was necessary to make a separation, a division to differentiate the future heirs that Sarai would engender, from the philosophy of life represented by the materialism advocated by Lot.
Información no es Conocimiento
En esta era de la información, de la data acumulada y presentada en cantidades jamás experimentadas en la historia de la humanidad, tendemos a confundir información con conocimiento. Sobre este tema quiero hablar en la entrega de hoy. ¿Qué efecto produce todo esto en las relaciones con el prójimo, en el desarrollo de los hijos? Escuchen este y todos mis programas en este canal Suscríbanse para permanecer en contacto. Muchas gracias por estar allí. MIles de personas disfrutan de estos videos gracias a que tu lo compartes y comentas. Recuerda visistar www.pynchasbrener.com #pynchasbrener. www.beshotproductions.net es la casa productora que realiza estos videos. Shavuah tov a todos #henrygrunberg
