Can’t Shake It

It is rare for a single Sedra to be focused on one sequence of events, without any deviation. This week’s Parsha, Vayetzei, is therefore an anomaly—the entirety of the Parsha is given to the story of Yaakov’s time away from his father’s home. The Parsha begins with Yaakov’s departure from Be’er Sheva, follows him through his years in Bais Lavan, and ends as he and his family travel back toward Eretz Yisroel. With the Parsha having such a homogenious focus, one would assume that the Haftorah serves as something of an extension. As we learn the Haftorah, then, let us try to see what insight we can gain into the life and qualities of Yaakov Avinu.

The Haftorah is taken from the end of Sefer Hoshea, and parts of it are actually quite familiar, as they are also Leined as the Haftorah for Shabbos Shuva. The very first Passuk is certainly connected to our Parsha: “Vayivrach Yaakov Sadeh Aram Vayaavod Yisroel B’Isha UbIsha Shamar”. The Navi speaks about the travails of Yaakov, that he was forced to flee to Aram and work as a shepherd in order to marry. The remaining Pessukim, however, seem totally unconnected to these words, and we must understand how they relate to our Parsha.

For the most part, the balance of the Haftorah contains severe Tochacha of Klal Yisroel, discussing the punishment that they deserve on account of their misdeeds. “V’Ata Yosifu Lachato…” because they have continued to sin “Yihiyu K’Anan Boker…K’Motz Yisoar Migoren” they will disappear like morning clouds, or like chaff blown off the threshing floor. As we learn the Pessukim, however, a particular detail sticks out.

At times it seems that the Navi is speaking to the entire nation, as when he says “Shichescha Yisroel Ki Bi B’Ezrecha”. In a number of places, however the Navi appears to be addressing only part of Klal Yisroel: Shevet Ephraim.

Toward the beginning of the Haftorah, the Navi says “Hichis Ephraim Tamrurim”, speaking about the anger that Ephraim engenders in the Kaviyachol. A few Pessukim later we reach about the downfall of Ephraim: “Kidaber Ephraim Reses Nasa Hu B’Yisroel V’Yeashem B’Bal VaYamos. Though Ephraim originally spoke eloquently, and was respected amongst Yisroel, an association with Avoda Zara brought destruction. Once we notice this pattern, we must of course try to understand it: why is Ephraim specifically mentioned?

There seem to be two general approaches to this question. The Radak and the Gr”a, among others, explain that because Ephraim was respected by their fellow Shevatim, as the Passuk says “Nasa Hu B’Yisroel”, their betrayal of Hashem was all the more obscene. In this approach, the Navi is using Ephraim as an extreme example of how far we had strayed.

Rashi, however, has another approach, which is shared by the Mahr”i Kra and others: the Navi is not talking about the entire Shevet Menashe but one member. Yeravam ben Nevat, the first of Malchei Yisroel, came from Shevet Ephraim, and it is he to whom the Navi refers when mentioning Ephraim. Yeravam was a powerful and respected individual, but because he was engaged in Avodah Zarah and prevented people from being Olei Regel, he was the cause of much Hashchasa in the Asarah Shevatim. These are the actions to which the Navi refers when speaking about Ephraim.

The next logical question, according to the Pshat of Rashi, is why the Navi refers to Yeravam in this way. Why paint the whole of Ephraim with the same brush, implicating the Shevet in the misdeeds of Yeravam? Also, why does the Navi choose to speak about one individual, Yeravam, in a Nevuah that seems to be otherwise directed at all of Klal Yisroel? In addition, we see elsewhere in Tanach that the term Ephraim is used much more generally. The most famous example is the Passuk in Yermiyahu: “HaBen Yakir Li Ephraim”. In fact, even at the end of our Haftorah the Navi once again refers to Ephraim, saying “Ephraim Mah Li Od L’Atzabim”, that Ephraim will recognize the fallacy of Avodah Zarah. This certainly would seem to point to a more general implication of the word “Ephraim”, not just specifically Yeravam. Why then to these Rishonim assume the Navi is speaking about Yeravam?

It would seem that in order to properly understand the approach of Rashi, and the use of the name Ephraim to refer to Yeravam, it would be prudent to gain a better grasp of the essence of Shevet Ephraim. Interestingly, however, the Divrei Chazal surrounding this Shevet seem to support the alternate approach to this Passuk.

As we know, when Yaaakov Avinu neared the end of his life he gave Brachos to all his sons, as well as Menashe and Ephraim. While the Brachos themselves are written at length in the Pessukim of Pashas Vayehci, it seems that thtere was an additional statement made at the time that is not. The Medrash Rabba in Parshas Vayikra tells us: “Atara Zu Nisater Ephraim M’Avinu Yaakov B’Shah SheNeftar L’olamo Amar Lo Ephraim Rosh HaShevatim Rosh HaYeshiva Yafa U’Meulah SheBibanai”. Before Yaakov Avinu was Niftar he proclaim that Ephraim was the “Rosh HaShevatim”, the “Rosh HaYeshiva” and the most elevated amongst his offspring.

We also find another quality of Ephraim, one that would perhaps have even more practical applications. In her Shira, Devorah HaNevia proclaims: “Meni Ephraim Shorasham B’Amalek”. These words have a literal translation, that those whose roots are in Amalek came from Ephraim, but it is not clear what that means. The Medrash in Pesikta Rabbasi, however, tells us: “Miyamav Shel Yaakov Haya Shevet HaZeh Mesukan L’Hifara M’Amalek”. We know that Amalek represents the arch-enemy of Klal Yisroel, the opposite of everything we stand for, and we see from the Medrash that there is a special Koach in Shevet Ephraim that allows him to defeat Amalek.

These two Mamarei Chazal, taken together, certainly lend credence to the approach of Radak to the Pessukim in our Haftorah. Shevet Ephraim is the “Yafa U’Meulah SheBibanai”, the one Shevet capable of defeating the essence of evil, and so we can understand that a departure by this Shevet from the Derech Hashem would be specifically disturbing, and worthy of mention. It is not clear, however, whether these Medrashim help explain why Yeravam is referred to as Ephraim.

There is a third Medrash, however, that may set us on our path.

As we know, when Yaakov Avinu gave the Brachos to Menashe and Ephraim there was a bit of confusion: he placed his right hand on Ephraim and his left on Menashe, which was a bit out of place because Menashe was the older brother. When the Torah describes the scene the Passuk says: “VaYishlach Yisroel Es Yimino VaYashes Al Rosh Ephraim V’Hu HaTzair”. The Medrash Rabba in Parshas Beraishis asks: would we not have known that Ephraim was the younger brother based on the Pessukim that speak about the births of Yosef’s sons? Why does the Torah have to remind us that Ephraim was the younger brother? The Medrash answers that the Torah is telling us that Ephraim was Matzir himself, he made himself smaller, and that’s why he was Zoche to the Bechora, to the right hand of Yaakov.

This Medrash perhaps allows us an insight into the true essence of Shevet Ephraim: Anava. Because Ephraim was willing to be Mashpil himself, to make himself smaller, he was Zoche to a greater share in the Brachos of Yaakov.

We can also see that this Middah, the ability to be Mashpil oneself, is directly correlated to the two Medrashim discussing the Maalos of Epharim.

As Chazal tell us time and again, Torah is directly opposed to Gavah. The Gemarah in Taanis, for example, states: “Ain divrei Torah Miskaymin Ela B’Mi SheDaato Shefela Alav.” In order for one to truly be Koneh the Torah, he must be a Shafel, and not a Ba’al Gaava. The declaration of Yaakov Avinu, that Ephraim is “Rosh HaShevatim Rosh HaYeshiva Yafa U’Meulah SheBibanai” relates to his Gadlus BaTorah, which was perforce a result of his Anava.

We can also perhaps explain that this was the root of the Koach of Ephraim mentioned in the Pesikta Rabasi.

The Passuk in Parshas Beshalach, after Milchemes Amalek, says: “Ki Yad Al Kes Kah Milchama B’Amalek M’Dor Dor.” Rashi, citing Medrash Tanchuma, explains that the word “Kes” refers to the Kisei of HKBH but is written without one letter because “Ain Shemo Shalem V’Ain Kiso Shalem Ad SheYimche Shemo Shel Amalek.” Part of the Shem Hashem, Kaviyachol, is missing so long as Amalek exists.

R’ Avrohom Taub, a Modzitzer Einikel, in his Sefer Divrei Tova, explains that because the destruction of Amalek yields a Shleimus in the Shem and Kisei of Hashem, it can only be done by someone with the purest of intentions. If a person has his own Kavod in mind, thinking of the adulations and honor he will be afforded by destroying our most powerful enemy, he will not be able to have an effect against Amalek. Only one without any self-interest, who is Kulo L’Shem Shamayim, will be Zoche to restore the Shem Hashem in full. That is why the descendants of Ephraim, who was Maktin himself and defined at Shiflus, were “Mesukan L’Hifara M’Amalek”, because their Shevet would the capacity for selflessness required for this task.

With this in mind, we may be able to understand what Yeravam ben Nevat is referred to as Ephraim and why specifically in these Pessukim.

The Gemarah in Sanhedrin discusses both the rise and downfall of Yeravam. Chazal tell us that Yeravam was Zoche to the Melucha of Yisroel because he gave Shlomo HaMelech apt Mussar. On the other hand, he was also punished because he gave that Mussar in public. The Gemara continues, explaining why Yeravam is among those who do not have a Chelek in Olam Habah: “Amar R’ Nachman Gasus HaRuach SheHaya B’Yeravam Tordoso Min Haolam.” After Yeravam had achieved his secession and established a new Melucha, he realized that he had a problem. Were he to allow his nation to go be Oleh Regel, they would see that he was not a true Melech B’Yisroel, for only Malchei Yehuda can sit in the Bais Hamikdash, and this would threaten his sovereignty. For this reason he prevented those under his rule from making Aliya L’Regel, resulting in his loss of Olam Habbah.

We see, then, that Yeravam was characterized by the Middah of Gasus HaRuach, or Ga’avah. Because he was concerned with his own gain and self-image, he ultimately lost all that he gained and more. It emerges that Yeravam, who came from Ephraim, was in fact acting contrary to his very essence. As a memner of the Rosh HaShevatim he should have been a Shafel, one who could be Maktin himself, and we see that he was not.

Perhaps it is for this reason that he is referred to, in these Pessukim, as Ephraim. The Navi comes to give Tochacha, but ends with words of encouragement: “Kichu Imachem Devarim V’Shuvu El Hashem”. Even within the Tochacha, however, we find the beginnings of Nechama: Yeravam was a Rasha, he abandoned the ways of his Shevet, but he did not lose that name. For all his Gasus HaRuach, he was still Ephraim, and no matter what he did that name would apply to him. The Navi again refers to Ephraim at the end of the Haftorah, because it is the same Ephraim before Teshuva and after—our essence is never lost.

The Sedra speaks about the travels and travails of Yaakov Avinu, and includes the births of eleven out of the twelve Bnei Yaakov, the fathers of almost all the Shevatim. The story of the Parsha, from beginning to end, is really the story of our origins. The Haftorah therefore teaches us this important lesson: the Hashpos that Yaakov Avinu put into each of his sons, and they into their own descendants cannot be shaken. No matter how far we might stray, we will forever be sons of Yaakov, members of the Am Hanivchar. Though we may stumble, our essence cannot be obliterated, our roots forever tied to our past.