Part Message for Vayechi This week’s Parsha begins with a rather odd, yet subtle, argument between Jacob and his son Joseph, the Viceroy of Egypt. Joseph hears that his father is ill, and rushes his sons to their grandfather for a last and final blessing. When he arrives, he arranges the two boys before the Jewish patriarch with Menashe, the older son, on Jacob’s right hand side, and Efraim, the younger son, on Jacob’s left. Jacob, for some reason, sees things differently. “However, Israel [Jacob] stretched out his right hand and placed [it] on Efraims head, although he was the younger, and his left hand [he placed] on Manashehs head. He guided his hands deliberately, for Manasheh was the firstborn (Gen. 48:14)” Joseph tries to correct his father, telling him Not so, Father, for this one is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head..(Gen. 48:18)” His effort are without success. Jacob quickly responds that I know, my son, I know; he too will become a people, and he too will be great. But his younger brother will be greater than he, and his children[s fame] will fill the nations. It’s a strange argument to take place between a father and a son, and begs a deeper explanation. There are many that have been given throughout the Generations of Jewish scholarship, but for now, here is one. Let’s begin with why Joseph would have favored Menashe, placing him under his father’s right hand. When Joseph came to Egypt, he faced the formidable challenge of preserving his identity as a Jew while being awash in the corruption and immorality of Egypt. There are two ways of dealing with such a predicament. 1. To enter a cocoon-state - to totally lock oneself away from the culture, as medieval monks did in their monasteries when they tried to evade the cultures they considered ‘corrupt’. We’ll call this “Identity-Preservation”. 2. To actively engage the culture that surrounds you, and try and change it for the better — as the Jewish prophets always sought to do. Notice, far from locking themselves away in study-halls, they went on the streets and marketplaces of Jewish towns in Israel and babylon and tried to get the people to repent. We’ll call this “Culture-Changing The truth is, both are needed. One cannot impact a culture and change it for the better if they are victims to its influence. Thus, the first is required in order to bring about the second. Now — let’s have a look at Joseph’s sons. We actually see these two methods of maintaining one’s identity expressed within their names. When Joseph named Menashe, the firstborn, he did so saying “ki noshani elokim… es kol beis avi’ — “G-d has dislodged me... from my father’s house. The main idea here is his father’s home — where he was raised and was granted his true, jewish identity. This represents Joseph’s efforts to preserve his identity, and to lock himself within the memories of his father’s home. By doing so he could further cut himself off from Egyptian culture, and see himself as a Jew of Jacob’s home. When Efraim is born, however, we see a different theme mentioned in the naming. He says ki hifrai elokim b’eretz onyi— “G‑d has made me flourish in the land of my affliction.” The focus here is not his past identity, but the land of his affliction — his new environment. Not just his new environment, but his ability to flourish even while totally enveloped within it. This is Joseph engaging his new environment, and changing it for the better — and therefor being able to flourish even while a part of it. Still Joseph always felt that the first was more important. Though he always wanted to have a positive impact on his environment, he felt it was secondary. Of prime importance was preserving his own identity, even if it meant being more reclusive. Thus, when both of his sons are blessed — he puts Menashe under his father’s right hand. Jacob disagrees. He felt that while we needed to safeguard our identities, the ultimate goal was for the Jewish people to actively change the world. Hence his name Israel — he who struggles. He is willing to engage in the struggle of maintaining his identity if that’s what it takes to change the world. Thus he puts his right hand over Efraim. This disagreement still plays out today. Look at the difference between the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s approach and that of other Hasidic Rabbis. They all made very close-knit and secure communities, where everyone lives together in big communities. Such closed-off communities like Monroe and Williamsburg have little impact on the surrounding area, but they’re more secure for maintaining Jewish Identity. On the contrary, though, the Lubavitcher Rebbe sent emissaries to live on their own, often without any orthodox community, in order to impact those environments and strengthen the Jewish presence there. It’s risky. Their kids often have no Jewish schools to go to, they can’t get Kosher food easily, and few of their friends will be religious. Yet they truly change their world.
Posted on: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 21:31:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015