"Eileh Toldot Yaakov, Yosef ben sheva esreh shanah hayah roeh et echav bazon, vehu naar et benei Bilhah ve-et benei zilpah neshei aviv vayavei Yosef et dibatam raah el avihem." Rashi, citing the midrash, explains this long and complex verse by suggesting that after the tumultuous developments enumerated in the previous parshiyot, Yaakov Avinu sought a more tranquil existence. Hence, "vayeshev Yaakov" signifies an effort to retreat from the tensions and pressures that had hitherto characterized his life ("bikesh Yaakov leisheiv be-shalvah"). Hashem's providential response, thrusting him into the intense internecine conflict between Yosef and his brothers ("kafzah alav rogzo shel Yosef"), unequivocally rejected the religious validity of any impulse to withdraw from responsible leadership. The midrash concludes with a rhetorical flourish in which Hashem characterizes Yaakov's request as offensive, astonishing, and completely antithetical to the tzadik's sense of mission ("lo dayan le-zadikim mah she-metukan la-hem le-olam ha-ba, ela shemevakshim leisheiv be-shalvah be-olam ha-zeh?).
On one level, this sharply formulated midrash merely reflects the notion of "adam le-amal yulad - that man's existence must be purposive, demanding that he exercise spiritual responsibility, and that he maximize his personal development, notwithstanding obstacles and inconveniences. This perspective certainly requires an intense and active commitment irrespective of the counter pressures. The first words addressed to the first patriarch, Avraham, demand a posture of challenging activism that was to completely disrupt his life, "lech lecha mei-artzecha."
The midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, beginning of Vayikra) records the gentler rejection of a parallel request by Moshe Rabbeinu to withdraw from active leadership in the aftermath of yetziat Mitzrayim and the major episodes in the midbar. Moshe's subsequent expressions of fatigue and frustration are similarly dismissed as grounds to vacate or abandon his inimitable leadership and tireless avodat Hashem.
However, the particularly vehement tone of the midrash and the dire consequences of the Yosef affair accentuate an additional dimension singularly related to Yaakov's particular circumstances, status and paradigmatic leadership legacy. It is perhaps no coincidence that the very next verse further elaborates the episode of "rogzo shel Yosef" by suddenly and unexpectedly invoking Yaakov's newly minted name, Yisrael ("ve-Yisrael ahav et Yosef mikol banav ki ben zekunim hu lo, ve-asah lo ketonet passim").
The very persona of Yaakov was redefined by the integration of Yaakov-Yisrael that was twice formalized in parshat Vayishlach (32:29-30; 35:10). Unlike the renaming of Avraham and Sarah which eclipsed and excluded their previous appellations, Yisrael was evidently introduced as an additional dimension of Yaakov's persona (see Berachot 13a, and Orah Hachayim, Kli Yakar and other commentaries ad loc. I hope to analyze the implications of this distinction elsewhere). Indeed, the Torah almost immediately resumes referring to him primarily as Yaakov, as the gemara and mefarshim note. However, notwithstanding the absence of exclusivity, the change is a vital refinement of Yaakov-Yisrael's persona, mission and legacy. The names are not interchangeable. They reflect the integration of the focused, idealistic, single-minded "yoshev ohalim" with the more cosmopolitan and complex leader-persona of "ki sarita im Elokim ve-im anashim va-tuchal". Rabbeinu Bachya and others explain that the Torah expresses different dimensions of Yaakov-Yisrael's leadership by invoking his different names. The events chronicled in parshat Vayechi particularly underscore the oscillation between these two dimensions.
It is noteworthy that both presentations of the introduction of the Yisrael motif actually imply that "Yisrael" is a permanent and irrevocable addition -"lo yeiamer od shimcha ki im Yisrael"(32:29), "lo yikarei shimchah od Yaakov ki im Yisrael yihiyeh shimecha, vayikarei et shemo Yisrael"(35:10) - despite the fact that it is not exclusive and that the actual use of the Yaakov moniker continues to dominate. Apparently the Torah intends to emphasize that the Yisrael leadership motif is an inseparable part of the bechir ha-avot, even when the context justifies and even demands underscoring his Yaakov roots. The fact that Yaakov's entire spiritual journey and religious typology, embodied by the magnificent, harmonious blend of "tiferet", accentuate a seamless integration reinforces this perspective.
Perhaps Yaakov's premature quest for tranquility was deemed particularly objectionable precisely because it violated this fundamental core dimension of his paradigmatic, integrated leadership mission. It is undoubtedly no coincidence that his "Yisrael" persona is almost completely eclipsed in the aftermath of mechirat Yosef, the devastating consequence of the "rogzo shel Yosef" calamity. The decisive and complex orientation implied by the Yisrael identity surfaces only briefly (43:6,8,11) in the decision to finally entrust Binyamin to Yehudah's custody as a last resort to secure a broader future. In this context, Yaakov is fleetingly able to transcend the passive, personal, and narrower focus of his post-mechirat-Yosef personality. Only with the revelation of Yosef's survival, the conclusion of "rogzo shel Yosef", does the forceful and multifaceted leader persona of "Yisrael" reemerge! "Va-techi ruach Yaakov avihem" is immediately followed by "Vayomer Yisrael rav od Yosef beni chai; eilcha ve-erenu be-terem amut"(45:27-28).
The effort to avoid or escape one's spiritual destiny and leadership responsibility, no matter the difficulties engendered, is not only futile but fundamentally an act of religious rebellion. As "benei Yisrael" we have experienced much travail and encountered overwhelming challenges that have tested our mettle as a people that deserve to bear the name of the greatest and most integrated of the avot. As we celebrate the Chanukah miracle, the successful campaign of the Maccabees, and especially the rededication of the Beis Hamikdash and menorah that embodied the determination to strive for spiritual maximalism and that entailed extraordinary faith, the willingness to sacrifice, and a powerful sense of national destiny, may we rededicate as well to the responsible underlying "Yisrael" principle of Jewish life that continues to define our purpose and mission as individuals and as a people.