Rabbi Gustavo Kraselnik
Congregacion Kol Shearith Israel
Congregacion Kol Shearith Israel
In patriarchal societies each clan was hierarchically structured, with a clear and defined leadership responsible for its guidance and welfare. In the next generation, the first-born son would take on the task of directing his family, hence the special attention he received, concerning both ritual and administrative issues for which they would become responsible.
The Torah offers examples on this. Associated with the salvation of the Israelite first-borns during the last plague in Egypt (while the locals all died), it was established that they would be consecrated to God (Ex. 13:2), exempted from such responsibility only when it was assigned to the Levites (Num. 3:41).
On the other hand, with regard to inheritance, the first-born received a double portion of what his brothers received (Deut. 21:17), in order to clearly determine his position as leader among the following generation, thus avoiding competition.
The Torah offers examples on this. Associated with the salvation of the Israelite first-borns during the last plague in Egypt (while the locals all died), it was established that they would be consecrated to God (Ex. 13:2), exempted from such responsibility only when it was assigned to the Levites (Num. 3:41).
On the other hand, with regard to inheritance, the first-born received a double portion of what his brothers received (Deut. 21:17), in order to clearly determine his position as leader among the following generation, thus avoiding competition.
The importance of birthright seems to explain the challenge to receive the father’s blessing that appears in Parashat Toledot, which drives Jacob to buy from his brother Esau his birthright, in exchange for a pottage of lentils (Gen. 25:29:34), and later on, his mother Rebekah, to design a plan to disguise Jacob, so as to make him pass for his brother (27:1-29). Our third patriarch and his mother come off badly in this story. The midrash and scholars call on all imaginable resources of interpretation, in their attempt to justify their acts.
Nevertheless, there are some who suggest an alternative reading. The analysis made by J.G. Frazer, renowned anthropologist at the beginning of the 20th century, points in this direction; in his classical work “Folk-Lore in the Old Testament”, he outlined the idea of ultimogeniture, that is, inheriting by the youngest son.
From this perspective, both Jacob’s claim and Rebekah’s plan constitute legitimate attempts to redeem this principle, which, just as Frazer proved, existed in different ancient cultures and among the people of Israel as well.
An example of this is the selection of Isaac, Jacob’s father, over Ishmael, as well as the preference that Jacob himself felt for his son Joseph (his second to last son) and for Benjamin (the youngest).
The pattern is repeated one generation later, when Jacob himself, on his deathbed, crosses his hands for the blessing of his grandsons, putting Ephraim, the youngest, before Manasseh, the oldest (48:14); the same happens with the birth of the twins Perez and Zerah, born to Judah and Tamar (38:28:30).
Centuries later, according to Frazer, the selection of David, the youngest of his brothers, as king of Israel (1 Samuel 16:10-13), as well as that of Solomon, to the detriment of his older brothers (1 Chron. 3:1-5), both serve as testimony of the application of the ultimogeniture principle.
Beyond this principle’s innovative approach, which somehow restores the image of the young Jacob, I think that, essentially, the issue continues to develop along the lines of nonconformity. Both primogeniture and ultimogeniture share the premise that a fact of the birth order, completely alien to any person’s will, grants a person the privilege of receiving the paternal blessing.
Therein lies the dissatisfaction. Being the oldest or the youngest son is not reason enough for receiving the benefits of inheritance, even more so when dealing with the legacy of the founding family of the people of Israel.
I prefer to believe that Jacob’s actions throughout his life were what defined his merit to become the keeper of the covenant: his spirituality to find God in Bet’el, his determination to build a family despite his father-in-law’s deceptions, his fortitude to fight with God and become Israel, his courage to once again approach his brother, and his integrity to overcome the disappearance of his son Joseph.
Jacob is the most human of our patriarchs. The father of the twelve tribes becomes the father of the entire people. Even with his misfortunes, so similar to our own, he was able to become a paradigm of faith and project his name, Israel, on his descendants.
Setting aside his right or lack of right to the paternal blessing as youngest son, and the unrighteous way he used to achieve it, Jacob had the capacity to understand that what determines the right to continue the covenant is not fate, but rather the choices we make in life; these are what makes us worthy, or unworthy, of such responsibility.
And he understood it. He understood this to such an extent that he became the third patriarch of the Jewish people, at the same level as his father Isaac and his grandfather Abraham. Even the midrash (Va-yikra Rabbah 36:4) affirms that through his merit, Jacob’s merit, was the world created.
Shabbat Shalom,
Gustavo
Nevertheless, there are some who suggest an alternative reading. The analysis made by J.G. Frazer, renowned anthropologist at the beginning of the 20th century, points in this direction; in his classical work “Folk-Lore in the Old Testament”, he outlined the idea of ultimogeniture, that is, inheriting by the youngest son.
From this perspective, both Jacob’s claim and Rebekah’s plan constitute legitimate attempts to redeem this principle, which, just as Frazer proved, existed in different ancient cultures and among the people of Israel as well.
An example of this is the selection of Isaac, Jacob’s father, over Ishmael, as well as the preference that Jacob himself felt for his son Joseph (his second to last son) and for Benjamin (the youngest).
The pattern is repeated one generation later, when Jacob himself, on his deathbed, crosses his hands for the blessing of his grandsons, putting Ephraim, the youngest, before Manasseh, the oldest (48:14); the same happens with the birth of the twins Perez and Zerah, born to Judah and Tamar (38:28:30).
Centuries later, according to Frazer, the selection of David, the youngest of his brothers, as king of Israel (1 Samuel 16:10-13), as well as that of Solomon, to the detriment of his older brothers (1 Chron. 3:1-5), both serve as testimony of the application of the ultimogeniture principle.
Beyond this principle’s innovative approach, which somehow restores the image of the young Jacob, I think that, essentially, the issue continues to develop along the lines of nonconformity. Both primogeniture and ultimogeniture share the premise that a fact of the birth order, completely alien to any person’s will, grants a person the privilege of receiving the paternal blessing.
Therein lies the dissatisfaction. Being the oldest or the youngest son is not reason enough for receiving the benefits of inheritance, even more so when dealing with the legacy of the founding family of the people of Israel.
I prefer to believe that Jacob’s actions throughout his life were what defined his merit to become the keeper of the covenant: his spirituality to find God in Bet’el, his determination to build a family despite his father-in-law’s deceptions, his fortitude to fight with God and become Israel, his courage to once again approach his brother, and his integrity to overcome the disappearance of his son Joseph.
Jacob is the most human of our patriarchs. The father of the twelve tribes becomes the father of the entire people. Even with his misfortunes, so similar to our own, he was able to become a paradigm of faith and project his name, Israel, on his descendants.
Setting aside his right or lack of right to the paternal blessing as youngest son, and the unrighteous way he used to achieve it, Jacob had the capacity to understand that what determines the right to continue the covenant is not fate, but rather the choices we make in life; these are what makes us worthy, or unworthy, of such responsibility.
And he understood it. He understood this to such an extent that he became the third patriarch of the Jewish people, at the same level as his father Isaac and his grandfather Abraham. Even the midrash (Va-yikra Rabbah 36:4) affirms that through his merit, Jacob’s merit, was the world created.
Shabbat Shalom,
Gustavo
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario