Parshat Va-Yigash Netziv, R. Naftali Zvi Yehudah of Berlin, sees it differently. For him, living in Goshen was a way in which Yaacov's family could build a life of holiness. The fundamental difference between these approaches is the following: Arama sees Goshen as a way to distance onesself from a negative-from the Egyptian political scene. Goshen in of itself had nothing positive to offer. It's only attraction was what it was not; the center of Egyptian life. Neziv disagrees. Goshen had something positive to offer. It was there that the infrastructure of an autonomous sovereign people could be developed. My Rebbe in Chumash Nehama Leibowitz notes that the background of these commentators contributes to the views presented here. Arama lived in fifteenth century Spain and was involved in the Spanish political system. He knew the possible corruption of political office and understood how Yaacov would have wanted to keep his family far from the center of political life. Neziv, whose life was meshed with the return to Zion,
saw Goshen as a move towards realizing a dream: the building of a state within a
state, as a step towards returning to Israel and developing our national homeland. A real message for diaspara Jewry today: No matter how developed our Judaism -- assimilation is inevitable. To be sure, individuals may maintain their Jewish identity in the exile; but for the community of Israel, our destiny lies not in the Goshens of this world, not in Egypt --but in Israel. SHABBAT SHALOM © 5759/1998. All
rights reserved. |