In the world of Marketing, “Brand” is everything. An iPhone is not just a cell phone. Kleenex is not only a facial tissue. January 6 isn’t just a date nor is 9/11. All of these items, these dates take on a deeper meaning than just the thing. They have a “Brand”. People also have “Brands”. Athletes are much more than athletes, they have a brand, and Air Jordan is perhaps the biggest brand. Indeed athletes understand the importance of their name. Their brand is ultimately dependent upon their name, and their statistics. Politicians, while running for office do everything they can to establish a brand. The worst politicians, the crassest dangerous politicians, are those that focus on their brand instead of the good of their respective political party and the people. Trump has a “brand”, Marjorie Taylor Green has a “brand”. For many that brand embodies nihilism, fascism, and authoritarianism. Recently a new politician arrived from the state of New York, specifically from Long Island. His name is purportedly George Santos. I use the term “purportedly” because Geroge Santos claimed to have graduated from college, claimed to have lost several employees in a mass shooting of a gay club in Florida, claimed that his mom was killed in 9/11, claimed to have worked for Citibank and Goldman Sacks, and although raised Catholic, he claimed that his maternal grandparents were Jewish and Holocaust survivors. However, none of those claims are true. The politician that calls himself George Santos lied about everything. Even the Long Island Republican Party, the political party that supported his candidacy has renounced him and called for his resignation. So if you lie about everything in your life, if you lie about who you are, yes you might have a name but it means nothing. Republican leadership in Long Island, which includes Georg Santos’ district understands that the Santos brand is toxic. Republican congressional leadership, in its crass and pathetic desire for power, keeps the Santos brand close by because it needs the vote. That is not only sad, and pathetic, but it diminishes democracy. Ultimately democracies require trust. George Santos has already broken that trust.
This week we begin the second book of the Torah; the Book of Exodus – Sefer Shmot, literally translated into “The Book of Names”. This second book begins with the Parsha Shmot –Names. The first few verses essentially recount the ending of the Book of Genesis. Shmot re-iterates the names of Jacobs’ sons and the fact that Jacob and his sons came to Egypt. We are reminded that Jacob had already died. We are reminded that the next generation, Jacob’s sons (including Yosef) passed away. A new king assumes the mantle of power and does not know of Yosef’s great deeds. Instead, the new Pharaoh believed that this foreign population was tantamount to a fifth column. Therefore this tribe must be enslaved in order to prevent their uniting with Egypt’s external enemies. We read about the birth and growth of Moses, and his flight to Midian. We read about his becoming a husband, a shepherd, and a father. We learn of his epiphany with the Burning Bush and God’s instructions plan to redeem B’nai Israel from slavery and Moshe’s role in the redemptive process.
Considering, that this is a completely new Sefer, a new Book of the Torah and that the dominant theme of this new book is redemption from slavery and the national revelation at Mt. Sinai, why should begin with something as mundane as the re-iteration of the names of Jacobs’ sons: V’Eilah Shmot B’nai Yisroel Ha’Baim Mitzrayaima Eit Yaakov Ish U’Veito Ba’u- And these are the name of the Children of Israel who were coming to Egypt with Jacob, each man, and his household came, Reuven Shimon, Levi, Yehuda; Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin; Dan Naphtali; Gad and Asher. We don’t normally begin a new book with a conjunction, especially the conjunction “And”. Instead of beginning the Parsha and the Book of Shmot with Eilah (These), the Parsha begins with V’Eilah (And these). Also, we know, based upon the conclusion of Sefer Breishit that the sons, along with Jacob, arrived in Egypt decades before (Gen. 46:8-30). Why do these opening verses repeat the concluding verses of the previous book? RaMBaN, (the great 12th-century Spanish doctor, commentator, and Halachist), and R’ Bachya (late 13th and early 14th-century Torah commentator), explain that the conjunction which begins the Parsha purposefully connects this new book to the previous book. “B’nai Yisroel”, the term now used for the extended tribe owe their existence and their future existence to V’Eilah –“and these”…. these sons of Jacob, these sons who were “with Jacob” in his descent into Egypt. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh (19th Cent. Germany) explains that these twelve sons and their resulting twelve tribal families were intimately attached to Jacob, and this was the secret of Israel’s strength and survival in Egypt. Although each son had his own family, he remained connected and united with Jacob. Implicit to these opening verses we understand that the secret to B’nai Israel’s survival in Egypt as slaves: past, present, and future were connected through values and covenant of the name of Jacobs's twelve sons, Jacob, and his father and grandfather, Isaac and Abraham. The strength of those connections, the strength of being connected to the past with an eye towards a hopeful and positive future kept B’nai Israel spiritually free despite physical hardship and bondage.
A name isn’t just a name. The names of Yaakov’s sons were so much more than names. They were the names of 12 tribes. Each tribe embodied a brand, an essence of some kind. Levi would come to embody the tribe of the priesthood. Levi would be the tribe that came to be known as always in service to God. So doesn’t it make sense that Moshe, the greatest of God’s servants came from the Tribe of Levi? So what does it say about a political party that won’t disavow a person who lied about everything that contributes to who he is? Yes, there is a name, but we don’t know who he really is. What we do know is the presence of such a person diminishes a Party that believes in nothing but power. The presence of such a person diminishes our trust in democratic institutions.
Rav Yitz
No comments:
Post a Comment