VaYigash
Rabbi Bernard Fox
“And He said, “I am
the Omnipotent G-d of your father. Do
not be afraid to go to Egypt, for it is there that I will make you into a great
nation.” (Beresheit 46:3)
Yosef asks his father
to descend to Egypt with his entire family.
Yitzchak decides to travel to Egypt with his family. He arrives at Beer Sheva. There, he offers sacrifices to the
Almighty. He has a prophecy. Hashem tells Yaakov that he should not fear
descending to Egypt. In Egypt, Bnai
Yisrael will become a great nation.
Hashem will continue to protect Bnai Yisrael. Eventually, Hashem will bring the Jewish nation back to the land
of Israel.
This prophecy is
difficult to understand. What was its
purpose? Yaakov had already decided to
travel to Egypt. Why did Hashem speak
to Yaakov at this point in time? It
would have been more reasonable for Hashem to reassure Yaakov before he made
his decision!
There is another
question. Hashem tells Yaakov not to
fear transplanting himself and his family.
Clearly, this assurance implies that Yaakov did have some fear. What was source of this trepidation?
Sforno answers these
questions. His answer is based on one
essential observation. The Almighty
identified himself to Yaakov as the G-d of his father Yitzchak. Why does Hashem choose this specific
appellation? In order to answer this
question and our other questions, some background information is needed.
Sforno explains that
Yaakov had not decided to settle in Egypt.
Actually, this assumption is supported by a previous passage. Yosef had asked his father to settle in
Egypt. In announcing his response,
Yaakov explains that he will travel to Egypt in order to see Yosef. He does not express any intention to
resettle in Egypt.[1] It seems that Yaakov’s intention was to
travel to Egypt, see Yosef, and return to Canaan.
Why was Yaakov
reluctant to comply with Yosef’s request?
Why did he not wish to resettle in Egypt? Sforno explains that Yaakov was aware of Hashem’s instructions to
his father, Yitzchak. Hashem forbade
Yitzchak to leave the land of Israel.
He had specifically admonished Yitzchak against living in Egypt.[2] Yaakov was not willing to deviate from the
instructions the Almighty had given to his father.
Now, we can understand
the reason Hashem identified Himself as the G-d of Yitzchak. Hashem was responding to Yaakov’s decision
to reject Yosef’s request. Yaakov was
traveling to Egypt. However, he did not
plan to settle there. He was following
the instructions the Almighty had given to Yitzchak. Hashem began this prophecy by identifying Himself as the G-d of
Yitzchak. In this manner, the Almighty
acknowledged the instructions He had given to Yitzchak. He was saying, “I am the G-d that forbade
Yitzchak to leave the land of Canaan.”
Hashem then continued. He
instructed Yaakov to settle in Egypt.
He should not fear that this would be a violation of the Almighty’s
will.
We have now answered
our questions. Hashem identified
Himself as the G-d of Yitzchak in order to acknowledge the admonition He had
given to Yitzchak. Yaakov did not need
a prophetic message in order to make his initial decision. This is because that decision was to merely
visit Egypt and see Yosef. He did not
plan to resettle. However, after Yaakov
embarked on this journey, Hashem spoke to him.
The Almighty was not addressing the issue of traveling to Egypt. Instead, He was speaking to the purpose of
this journey. Yaakov should not just
visit Egypt. He should resettle. Yaakov was not subject to the prohibition
placed upon Yitzchak.
This raises an
additional issue. Why was Yaakov
permitted – even commanded – to resettle in Egypt? Sforno explains that this was absolutely necessary for the
development of Bnai Yisrael. According to
Sforno, this lesson is also included in the prophecy. The Almighty told Yaakov that in Egypt He would make Bnai Yisrael
into a great nation. The intent of this
statement is to tell Yaakov that Egypt will not pose an obstacle to the
development of Bnai Yisrael. On the
contrary, the Almighty is telling Yaakov that the experience in Egypt is
essential to the development of Bnai Yisrael.
Why is this experience so important?
Sforno responds that
the people of Canaan accepted Bnai Yisrael.
This acceptance would lead to intermarriage and assimilation. Sforno explains that it was impossible for
the Yaakov's descendants to fully integrate into Egyptian society. Custom would
create an impenetrable barrier between Bnei Yisrael and the Egyptians. Egyptian
custom even forbade the sharing of a meal with Ivrim – the name by which
Yaakov, his family and followers were known. They would be segregated into a
separate district. Social interaction
would be limited. In this environment a small band of co-religionists could
develop into a unique nation.
Segregation and prejudice would prevent assimilation and absorption.
These conditions could
not be duplicated in Canaan. Social barriers between the Ivrim and the
indigenous peoples were minimal. Before Yaakov's descendants could develop into
an independent nation, assimilation would prevail.[3]
Yaakov's descendants
would eventually return to Canaan, but only after they had developed into Klal
Yisrael – the Jewish nation. This evolution could only take place in exile.
Sforno’ comments can
be more fully appreciated if we review an earlier incident. Dina, Yaakov's daughter, was abducted and
violated by Shechem, who was a prince among his people. Shechem fell in love
with Dina, and, accompanied by his father Chamor, he requested of Yaakov and
his sons permission to marry her. The brothers responded that they would not
allow Dina to marry an uncircumcised person. If Shechem, his father and all of
the males of the city would circumcise themselves, then the children of Yaakov
would agree to the marriage.
Shechem, Chamor and
the inhabitants of the city agreed, and they performed the circumcisions. Three
days later, while the men of the city were recovering, Shimon and Leyve, two of
Yaakov's sons, entered the city and killed all of the males. They rescued Dina and eliminated all those
who might have attempted to oppose their decision.
Yaakov condemned the
actions of his sons. The sons defended
their behavior. They argued that they
could not allow their sister to be treated as a prostitute. What was the basis of this dispute between
Yaakov and his sons? It seems that
Yaakov is making a compelling argument.
He agreed that it would be tragic to give Dinah to Shechem. But neither he nor his sons had ever
expected this outcome – that the people of Shechem would perform
circumcision. However when they did
perform circumcision, Yaakov and his sons were faced with the consequences of
the bargain. Yaakov maintained that
they should have accepted these unfortunate results and given Dinah to Shechem
in marriage. Yaakov and his sons had
violated their bargain. This disturbed
Yaakov. The people of Canaan would
conclude that Yaakov and his sons were dishonest. This would reflect poorly on
their morality and ultimately on Hashem.
Furthermore, Yaakov and his sons were a small family in an alien land. The other people of the land would identify
with the Shechem, Chamor and their people.
They would seek to avenge this wrong committed by his sons. Yaakov and his children could not defend
themselves from such an attack.
The sons responded
that they could not allow their sister to be treated as a prostitute. This response seems irrelevant! Yaakov shared their abhorrence for the
manner in which Dina had been treated.
However, he argued that the brothers had jeopardized the mission and
even the survival of Bnai Yisrael. How
are the sons responding to this objection?
According to Sforno,
the sons disputed both of Yaakov’s arguments.
They maintained that the people of Canaan were not so immoral as to
condone the behavior of Shechem. They
would recognize the right of Yaakov and his sons to rescue Dinah. Finally, they would understand the necessity
of using subterfuge. Shechem, Chamor
and their people outnumbered Yaakov and his sons. They could not rescue their sister without first disabling her
captors. Bnai Yisrael would not be
condemned for acting unethically.
Neither were they in danger of retribution.[4]
This incident is
remarkably revealing. Before Bnai
Yisrael would be prepared to posses the land of Israel, the family of Yaakov
would need to grow into a nation.
However, it is difficult for a family to develop into a distinct
nation. A single isolated family is
subject to tremendous pressure to assimilate into the surrounding nation and
culture. Yaakov’s children would be
faced with this pressure. How could
they resist this pressure to assimilate into the surrounding peoples?
This assimilation
could only be avoided if Yaakov’s children would see themselves as separate and
different from the surrounding peoples.
But the debate that Sforno describes between Yaakov and his children
suggests that they did not see themselves as an alien family in the land of
Canaan. They believed that the people
of Canaan had accepted them as their own and would respect the measures they
had taken to protect their interests.
This attitude suggests that the environment for assimilation already
existed.
This conclusion has
important implications. The antecedent
for assimilation already existed in Canaan.
Therefore, the family of Yaakov could only develop into the nation of
Bnai Yisrael in another land – a land in which they would not be permitted to
assimilate. Egypt was such a land. The Egyptians could not accept Bnai Yisrael
– even Yosef – as their equals. In the
environment of Egypt, assimilation would be impossible.
It emerges, that
according to Sforno, the exile to Egypt was a direct result of the attitudes of
Yaakov’s children. They had acquired
some level of identification with the people of Canaan and believed that they
had been accepted by the indigenous peoples.
This attitude created a perilous environment – an environment in which
assimilation was a real possibility.
Based on Sforno’s
analysis, it is not surprising that Jewish history is replete with instances in
which assimilation is followed by persecution.
The exile to Egypt is a template for these latter episodes of assimilation
and subsequent persecution. Yaakov’s
children were in danger of assimilating.
Providence intervened and prevented assimilation though placing Bnai
Yisrael in Egypt – an environment in which antipathy and prejudice prevented
assimilation. This same pattern is then
repeated throughout Jewish history.
When the danger of assimilation develops, discrimination and persecution
follow. This antipathy prevents further
assimilation and Bnai Yisrael is preserved.