The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

Parashat Vayeshev tells the tragic story of Yosef's mistreatment at the hands of his brothers, who sell him as a slave. At first, the brothers (according to Chazal, specifically Shimon and Levi) plot to kill Yosef, but Reuven, in an attempt to save his brother's life, successfully convinces them to instead cast Yosef into a pit. He had planned to later remove Yosef from the pit and bring him back home (see 37:19-22). In the end, of course, Yehuda, in Reuven's absence, suggests lifting Yosef from the pit to sell him to the Yishmaelites, thereby foiling Reuven's plan at rescuing his brother.

An ambiguous Midrashic passage (Yalkut Reuveni in Parashat Vayetze) draws a connection between Reuven's attempt to save his brother and Chanukah. Commenting on the verse in Shir Hashirim (end of chapter 7), "The mandrakes yield their fragrance, at our doors are all choice fruits," the Midrash writes: "The mandrakes yield their fragrance – this refers to Reuven, who saved Yosef; at our doors are all choice fruits – this is the Chanukah candle." How are we to understand this Midrash? What connection exists between Reuven's efforts in this episode and Chanukah, and what does either have to do with this verse in Shir Hashirim? (The association between this verse and Reuven obviously stems from the image of the "mandrakes" - "duda'im" – which the Midrash saw as an allusion to the "duda'im" Reuven brings his mother – Bereishit 30:14. Nevertheless, the connection to Chanukah, as well as the relevance of Reuven to this verse, require explanation.)

Reuven's rescue of his brother and the Chashmonaim's triumph over the Greeks share one common quality: the impermanence of the outcome. Reuven succeeded in dissuading his brothers from murdering Yosef, but his success was short-lived; they instead adopted Yehuda's plan to sell Yosef. Similarly, the Chashmonaim miraculously drove the Greeks out of Israel and rebuilt the nation's commitment to Torah and mitzvot, but this success did not last very long. After just three or four generations, the Hasmonean dynasty steered very far from the spiritual direction of its founders, and they even invited the Romans into Eretz Yisrael to settle their internal disputes, which obviously resulted in the Temple's destruction at the hands of Rome. One might therefore have questioned the propriety of establishing the festival of Chanukah and celebrating a victory whose fruits did not take very long to spoil – just as Reuven's success did not have very long-lasting results.

The Midrash therefore ascribes to these two achievements the aforementioned verse in Shir Hashirim. According to the Targum and several commentaries, this verse allegorically describes the sweet fragrance of the righteous among the Jewish people. Just as the scent of flowers and fruit trees announces the arrival of spring, so do the good deeds of Benei Yisrael mean that the time for redemption has come. What the Midrash comes to teach, perhaps, is that even short-lived, temporary successes contribute to the process of final redemption. We mustn't disregard the small steps taken towards this end, for even Reuven's efforts and the Chashmonaim's victory add to the sweet fragrance of Benei Yisrael's redemption, even if we cannot at first appreciate their long-term results.

(Based primarily on an article by Rabbi Yisrael Shachor)

******

As we discussed yesterday, Reuven, as told in Parashat Vayeshev, attempts to save the life of his brother Yosef, whom the other brothers had decided to kill. Reuven recommends to his brothers that they cast Yosef into a pit rather than kill him, with the intention that he, unbeknownst to his brothers, would later rescue Yosef. However, after Yosef is cast into the pit, Yehuda instructs his brothers to sell Yosef as a slave. When Reuven, who was apparently absent when Yehuda made his suggestion, returns to the pit to rescue Yosef, he is astonished to discover that Yosef is gone.

Where had Reuven gone, that he did not hear Yehuda's recommendation to his brothers? Rashi (37:29) cites one view from the Midrash that Reuven left to occupy himself in prayer and repentance over his sin of bringing Yaakov's bed out of Bilha's tent and into Leah's tent, a grave infringement on his father's honor (see 35:22 and Rashi).

(Rashbam explains this entire episode differently, claiming that the brothers sat at a distance from the pit and were unaware that Yosef was lifted from the pit by Midyanite merchants. Reuven never left his brothers, but rather returned to the pit upon hearing their plan to sell Yosef, to save him, only to discover that he was gone.)

What connection did Chazal see between the sale of Yosef and Reuven's sin of moving his father's bed? Why suddenly now does Reuven involve himself in repentance for this transgression?

Rav Soloveitchik is cited (by Rav Michael Shurkin, in his "Meged Giv'ot Olam") as offering the following explanation. Several Midrashim portray the ten brothers' decision to kill Yosef as a formal judicial ruling. They convened as a Bet-Din and reached the conclusion that Yosef was deserving of this punishment for having slandered them. Why, then, should they be criticized for their mistreatment of Yosef? If, indeed, they rendered an official ruling as a rabbinical court, then even if they were mistaken, they should not be punished for their error.

The answer, Rav Soloveitchik claimed, is clear: they did not consult on the matter with their father. Their hostility toward Yosef and objection to Yaakov's preferential treatment of him displayed an utter disregard for their father's judgment. They never even consulted with Yaakov on this matter, for they concluded on their own that he was in error and Yosef deserved to die. What allowed the sale of Yosef to occur was an attitude of disrespect towards Yaakov.

We can now understand the connection between Reuven's wrongdoing and the sale of Yosef. Reuven's infringement on his father's honor showed his brothers that decisions can be made without consulting a higher authority, that they are now independent of Yaakov and need not confer with him issues of major import. Upon seeing where this exaggerated sense of autonomy led, Reuven resumed his "fasting and sackcloth" over his transgression. He understood that his act had set a dangerous precedent for his younger brothers, who now considered themselves capable of independently deciding on matters of life and death without consultation with their father.

******

Yesterday, we saw the Midrash cited by Rashi in Parashat Vayeshev (37:29), that when Yosef's brothers pulled him out of the pit to sell him as a slave, Reuven had left to engage in prayer and repentance for his sin of moving his father's bed out of Bilha's tent. We cited the explanation of Rav Soloveitchik as to the connection between Reuven's sin and the sale of Yosef. Namely, Reuven's boldness in deciding matters concerning his father's personal life had an effect upon his brothers, who now felt independently capable of deciding Yosef's fate without consulting with Yaakov.

Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda, also claims that Reuven's transgression was indirectly responsible for the brothers' sale of Yosef, only in a different direction. Firstly, he writes, Reuven's misdeed practically brought about the situation which led to Yosef's sale. In response to Reuven's act, Yaakov strips him of the birthright and transfers it to Yosef (Divrei Hayamim I 5:1), which accounts for the preferential treatment afforded to Yosef. This aroused the other brothers' jealousy, which of course resulted in the sale. Perhaps more significantly, however, Rav Ginsburg claims that Reuven's sin had a general, adverse spiritual effect on the brothers, leading to a moral decline. This decline allowed the crime of mekhirat Yosef (the sale of Yosef) to occur.

In either case, Rabbi Ginsburgexplains on this basis a well-known Midrash concerning Reuven's repentance for this wrongdoing. The Midrash comments in Bereishit Rabba that God declared to Reuven, "You began first with teshuva – I swear that your descendant will rise and begin with teshuva." This refers to the prophet Hoshea, who proclaimed the famous call to repentance, "Shuva Yisrael" – "Return, O Israel, unto the Lord your God, for you have stumbled through your sin" (Hoshea 14:2). Many have wondered how the Midrash could consider Reuven the first man in history to perform teshuva. There are Midrashim of Adam Ha-rishon performing teshuva, Yishmael undergoing a process of teshuva, and so on. What, then, does this Midrash mean?

Many writers have therefore explained that the Midrash refers to a specific type of teshuva which Reuven introduces. Rav Ginsburg suggests, in light of his approach to the connection between Reuven's sin and the sale of Yosef, that this Midrash refers to the particular element of acknowledging the long-term effects of one's wrongdoing. Many people had performed teshuva before Reuven, but Reuven was the first to repent out of a keen sense of the results a negative action can yield. Generally, we are totally oblivious of the effects of our conduct; we see only the tangible and immediate effects, and fail to see beyond them to the long-term. Reuven understood that this sin, and all sins, have ramifications and impact far beyond that which immediately meets the eye, and this knowledge fueled his drive to perform complete teshuva.

The Midrash therefore associates with Reuven's repentance the famous cry of his descendant, Hoshea: "Return, O Israel… for you have stumbled through your sin." Rav Ginsburg suggests that the Midrash interprets the phrase, "stumbled through your sin" to mean, "stumbled as a result of your sin." Chazal famously comment, "Aveira goreret aveira" – one transgression often results in another. The prophet calls upon the nation to repent before they are thrust into a never-ending spiral of iniquity from which they will be unable to extricate themselves. This cry of Hoshea reflects the unique quality of Reuven's repentance: an awareness of the long-term repercussions and impact of our wrongdoing.

******

The latter sections of Parashat Vayeshev tell of Yosef's experiences in Egypt, including his resistance of the attempts made by his master's wife to seduce him. The verse states that when Potifar's wife finally grabs his garment, "he left his garment in her hand and fled outside" (39:12). The Midrash in Bereishit Rabba associates the word "ha-chutza" ("outside") in this verse with its usage earlier in Sefer Bereishit, in Parashat Lekh-Lekha, when God appears to Avraham: "He took him outside ['ha-chutza'] and said: Look towards heaven and count the stars… so shall your offspring be" (15:5). The Midrash comments that it was in the merit of Avraham that Yosef mustered the strength to overcome this trial. Why did specifically the merit of Avraham serve to assist Yosef in this episode (indeed, one version of the text in the Midrash reads, "the merit of the patriarchs"), and what does this have to do with that particular verse of God's vision to Avraham?

One might suggest that as many writers have claimed, the promise that Avraham's descendants will resemble the stars extends beyond the quantitative realm. God informs Avraham not only that his offspring will become as numerous as the stars, but that they will achieve an elevated status symbolized by the stars far above the earth. Confronted with the temptation posed by his master's wife, Yosef understood that if he succumbs, he would forfeit this "star" quality forever. Thus, in the merit of God's promise to Avraham, Yosef freed himself from the grip of the evil inclination.

A far more compelling explanation to this Midrash, however, is offered by Rav Barukh He-levi Epstein, in his "Torah Temima." He explains based on a well-known passage in the Gemara (Masekhet Nedarim 32a) commenting on the aforementioned verse in Parashat Lekh-Lekha. According to the Gemara, when God takes Avraham Avinu "outside," He actually tells him, "Go out from your astrology." Avraham had complained to God that all astrological signs indicated that he could not have any children. How, then, could God promise that a populous nation will emerge from him? God therefore instructs the patriarch to "go out from your astrology," to ignore the science of astrology and place his trust in the Almighty alone, who has infinitely more power and control than the astrological forces.

Herein, the Torah Temima explains, lies the connection between God's vision to Avraham and the story of Yosef and Potifar's wife. In his comments here in Parashat Vayeshev (39:1), Rashi cites a Midrash to the effect that Potifar's wife acted as she did "for the sake of heaven." Not that this was an act of piety in any sense, but that she foresaw through astrology that she would have offspring from Yosef, only she was unsure if this would occur through her, or through her daughter. In truth, Yosef ultimately marries her daughter after his appointment as viceroy of Egypt (41:45). But Potifar's wife insisted on seducing Yosef in order to fulfill this astrological prediction. (More likely, the astrological indication served her purposes as her moral basis, as it were, for her immoral conduct.) Quite possibly, the Torah Temima speculates, Potifar's wife made mention of her astrology as she attempted to persuade Yosef to sleep with her. Yosef presumably responded that he pays no heed to astrological signs, and obeys only the religious and ethical traditions of his father.

To this, perhaps, the Midrash refers when it says that Yosef escaped sin in the merit of Avraham. This critical message that the Almighty told to Avraham – "Go out from your astrology," that we must abide only by God's law and pay no attention to other, artificial factors, served Yosef in his heroic resistance to Potifar's attempt at seduction.

******

The haftara for Shabbat Chanukah (or, in a year such as this, for the first of the two Shabbatot of Chanukah) is taken from early part of Sefer Zekharya (2:14 - 4:7). The prophet Zekharya received this prophecy on the 24^th day of the month of Shevat during the second year of the reign of the Persian emperor, Daryavesh (Darius; see 1:7). This occurred exactly two months after the Jews living in Eretz Yisrael resumed the project of rebuilding the Bet Ha-mikdash, on the 24^th of Kislev (see Chagai 2:18; according to Rav Yoel Bin-Nun, the project actually resumed on the 25^th of Kislev, the day which later became Chanukah). The haftara begins with the prophet's exclamation, "Shout for joy, Fair Zion! For lo, I come, and I dwell in your midst – declares the Lord." God here promises to once again dwell among the Jewish people in the new Temple, just as He had in the First Temple, before its destruction.

Many commentators try to reconcile the straightforward meaning of this verse with Chazal's comment that the Shekhina did not return to the Second Temple. How could God promise the people that He will restore His Shekhina to the Temple under construction and then renege on His promise?

Ibn Ezra claims that this promise was initially given on condition that the Jews come in large numbers from the Diaspora back to Eretz Yisrael. This is how Ibn Ezra interprets the haftara's second verse: "On that day many peoples will attach themselves to the Lord and become His people… " Ibn Ezra explains this to mean that if "many peoples" from among Am Yisrael "attach themselves to the Lord" – return to Eretz Yisrael and the rebuilt Temple, then, as the verse concludes, "He will dwell in your midst." Since, as we know, the overwhelming majority of Jews remained in Bavel, the Shekhina never returned to the Temple.

However, this approach is very difficult to accept, for several reasons. For one thing, it necessitates inserting the allegedly missing word "if" at the beginning of the verse. Additionally, it requires understanding the word "goyim," which generally refers to foreign nations, to mean people from amthe Jewish people. Moreover, Zekharya, along with the other two prophets of the early period of the Second Commonwealth (Chagai and Malakhi), seem to direct their prophecies specifically toward the people living in Eretz Yisrael. We do not find them addressing the Jews who remained behind in Babylon. It seems strange, then, that Zekharya would implicitly issue an order that the Babylonian communities should emigrate to Eretz Yisrael.

In any event, other commentators suggest different interpretations. Many commentators, including Radak, Abarbanel and Malbim, explain this prophecy as referring to the final redemption, rather to the Second Temple period. In fact, Abarbanel writes that the prophet intends specifically to contrast the current situation with the glory of the Messianic era, when the Shekhina will actually return to the Temple.

The difficulty with this approach, as noted by these commentators themselves, involves the later portion of the prophecy, where Zekharya conveys God's message to Yehoshua, the kohen gadol (see 3:6-8). If this prophecy is meant to describe the Shekhina's return during the ultimate redemption, why does the prophet suddenly given instruction and admonition to the current leadership?

Faced with this problem, Radak suggests that indeed the prophet changes focus in this prophecy, and his discussion shifts from his prediction of the Messianic era to his message to Yehoshua.

Abarbanel, however, takes a drastically different, and particularly novel, approach in resolving this issue. He claims that Zekharya does not address Yehoshua at all. In fact, Abarbanel maintains that Yehoshua died before this prophecy was ever transmitted. Rather, the prophet here speaks to Yehoshua's offspring, the kohanim of future generations, specifically, the Chashmonaim. When Zekharya sees in his vision "Satan" standing to the right of Yehoshua (3:1), he actually beholds the religious persecution mounted by Antiochus – represented in this vision by the Satan – against Yehoshua's descendants, Matityahu and his sons, who remained faithful to tradition. But the angel in Zekharya's vision admonishes the Satan, claiming "this is a brand plucked from the fire." The righteous Chashmonaim were spared from the fire of Hellenization and will survive, and the "Satan" thus stands not a chance in his efforts to win them over. In any event, in this way Abarbanel manages to interpret this prophecy as foreseeing the future redemption, despite what seems to be direct instruction to Yehoshua the current kohen gadol.

We may, however, suggest an entirely different approach to the haftara's opening verse, the promise of the Shekhina's return to the Jewish people. The Sefat Emet (Chanukah, 5654) writes explicitly, "The Chanukah miracle served as testament to the Shekhina's resting in Israel." According to the Sefat Emet, the Shekhina did, in fact, reside in the Second Temple, but only after the Chashmonaim's defeat over the Greeks. The Chashmonaim saw the miracle of the menorah as a clear indication to the fact that the Shekhina has now returned. Th argument can be made that this is foreseen here, in Zekharya's prophecy of the Shekhina's return. The prophet seeks to encourage the current leadership, Yehoshua and Zerubavel, to continue the project of building the Temple, despite the many obstacles they encountered and despite the fact that what was emerging was a far cry from Shelomo's Temple. He promises them that one day the Shekhina will return, one day the "filthy clothes" of the kohen gadol (see 3:3 and Ibn Ezra) will come off and be replaced with "machalatzot" (priestly robes – see 3:4). Zekharya promises the current leadership that the project on which they have embarked will indeed succeed, if not in that generation, then many generations later.

The haftara concludes with the famous vision of the menorah, which we will iy"H discuss tomorrow. It is likely that the miracle of the oil brought to mind this prophecy of the menorah, the prophecy which foresaw the Shekhina's return to the Temple. To this, perhaps, the Sefat Emet referred when he said that the miracle of the oil proved that the Shekhina returned. It showed the Chashmonaim that the prophecy of the menorah had come true – the same prophecy that promised the ultimate return of God's presence to the Second Temple.

******

Yesterday we discussed the haftara for Shabbat Chanukah, a prophecy from the book of Zekharya (2:14 – 4:7). Recall that Zekharya prophesied at the beginning of the Second Commonwealth, and this prophecy is conveyed as the Jews who had returned to Eretz Yisrael, under the political leadership of Zerubavel, resume the project of rebuilding the Temple. The final and perhaps most famous section of this haftara describes the prophet's vision of a menorah: "I see a menorah all of gold, with a bowl above it. The lamps on it are seven in number, and the lamps above it have seven pipes, and by it are two olive trees, one on the right of the bowl and one on its left" (4:2-3). The prophet here describes a menorah alongside two olive trees, which produce the oil in the bowl above the menorah, and the oil is carried through pipes to the seven lamps. Three verses later, we learn the underlying message behind this vision: "This is the word of the Lord to Zerubavel: Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit – said the Lord of Hosts. Whoever you are, O great mountain in the path of Zerubavel, turn into level ground… " (4:6-7).

The obvious question arises, what connection is there between the vision and the message it seeks to convey? How does the image of the menorah show Zerubavel that he will succeed "not by might, nor by power," but rather with the divine spirit?

Rashi explains this prophecy to mean that just as the oil supply feeding the light of the menorah will eventually be depleted, so do Zerubavel and his people lack the strength, resources and wherewithal to complete this project independently. They do not have the "might" or "power" to build the Temple on their own. Therefore, God will provide for them His "spirit," meaning, He will put in the heart of the Persian king the desire to assist the Jews by supplying them with materials – as recorded in Sefer Ezra (chapters 6-8). In other words, responding to Zerubavel's frustration at the many challenges confronting his efforts to rebuild the Temple and Jewish homeland, the prophet confirms that indeed, Zerubavel is independently powerless to succeed in his formidable mission. But it is not his strength or power that will bring success, but rather the divine spirit God will infuse within the Persian government.

The Radak explains that this prophecy builds off the absence of any human effort in fashioning the menorah. The menorah simply appeared readymade in Zekharya's vision, as if it never required assembly. Similarly, the divine spirit is so indispensable to Zerubavel's project that in a certain sense the Temple, like the menorah, is built by itself, without any human effort.

A particularly fascinating approach to this prophecy is taken by Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, in his essay on the symbolism of the menorah ("Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch," vol. 3, pp.223-224). According to Rav Hirsch, when Zekharya speaks of "My spirit," he refers to the description of "the spirit of the Lord" in a much earlier prophecy, of Yeshayahu: "A shoot shall grow out of the stump of Yishai… The spirit of the Lord shall alight upon him: A spirit of wisdom and insight, a spirit of counsel and valor, a spirit of knowledge and reverence for the Lord" (Yeshayahu 11:1-2). What Yeshayahu describes, Rav Hirsch writes, is, in fact, a menorah. The base of the menorah is the "stump of Yishai" – the Davidic line, from which a "sprout" – a leader - will grow. This "sprout," the spine of the menorah, will be endowed with "the spirit of the Lord," which divides into six categories: wisdom and insight, counsel and valor, knowledge and reverence. These six categories form the six arms of the menorah that extend from the "sprout," the leader, which, as stated, emerges from the menorah's base and fthe center rod. Rav Hirsch observes that Yeshayahu doesn't simply list the six qualities comprising this divine spirit, but arranges them into three groups of two. He suggests that the two members of each group belong on different sides of the menorah. For example, in the first group – "wisdom and insight," "wisdom" occupies the far right-hand arm of the menorah, whereas "insight" forms the far left-hand arm. And so on. It thus emerges that "wisdom," "counsel" and "knowledge" form the right side of the menorah, whereas "insight," "valor" and "reverence" form the right side. The right side of the menorah would then symbolize practical knowledge and know-how, while the left side represents the principles and ideals underlying this knowledge, the dichotomy Rav Hirsch describes as "theory and practice, perception and accomplishment."

For good reason, then, the vision of the menorah informs Zerubavel that he will succeed only with the "menorah" of the divine spirit, which consists of these six branches – the combination between firm religious principles and ideals on the one hand, and the practical sense to implement them, on the other.

******

Many approaches have been taken to explain the rivalry that develops in Parashat Vayeshev between Yosef and his brothers. The Torah tells that "Yosef brought bad reports of them to their father" (37:2), which, together with Yaakov's preferential treatment towards Yosef and Yosef's dreams of leadership, ignite the brothers' jealousy to the point where they plan fratricide. What was all this friction about? Why did Yosef bring bad reports about his brothers in the first place?

Rav Moshe Rosen, in his "Ohel Moshe" (New York, 1963), claims that the key to understanding this conflict lies in two words in the parasha's third verse: "ki VEN ZEKUNIM hu lo" – Yosef was Yaakov's "ben zekunim" – literally, "child of old age." Rashi cites different interpretations of this phrase. Targum Onkelos translates it to mean, "a wise son," which likely refers to the comment in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 84:8), that Yaakov transmitted to Yosef all the Torah he had studied while in the yeshiva of Shem and Ever (see also Radak). Another interpretation in the Midrash (ibid.) explains this to mean that Yosef physically resembled Yaakov. What both these interpretations suggest, Rav Rosen writes, is a strong sense of loyalty on Yosef's part to his father. The physical resemblance spoken of in the Midrash perhaps symbolically refers to Yosef's similarity – or ambition for similarity – to his father. Yosef had a pronounced interest in studying from his father and loyally following his example.

Herein, Rav Rosen writes, lies the point of contention between Yosef and his brothers. The brothers allowed themselves a degree of autonomy that Yosef could not tolerate. They felt capable of charting their own path in avodat Hashem without faithfully adhering to Yaakov's teachings. This argument between Yosef and the brothers is expressed allegorically in the Midrash's account (cited by Rashi, 37:2) that Yosef accused Leah's sons of three transgressions: verbally abusing the sons of the maidservants, giluy arayot (forbidden sexual relations), and eiver min ha-chai (the consumption of meat taken from a live animal). Many commentators were baffled by this Midrash; it is hard to decide which is more likely – that the brothers actually committed these crimes (particularly the last two), or that Yosef would falsely accuse them of doing so. Both possibilities seem awfully difficult to entertain. One easy solution, as Rav Rosen suggests, is to interpret the Midrash allegorically. Yosef strongly objected to his brothers' sense of autonomy, which the Midrash symbolically describes with these three sins. First, he accused them of forbidden relations – the disruption of family life, disloyalty to one's family. Secondly, they committed eiver min ha-chai – they caused a rupture in their patriarchal chain of tradition, much like a limb severed from an animal. Finally, they disregarded the sons of Bilha and Zilpa, who sided with Yosef on this issue (see 37:2), on the grounds that having been raised by maidservants, they grew accustomed to faithfully following orders without any independent thought.

With this approach, Rav Rosen explains an otherwise perplexing passage in the Midrash, that Yosef told his brothers that in the future, their descendants would bring gifts and offerings to the golden calves erected by his descendant – Yeravam Ben Nevat, founder of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. What did Yeravam's establishment of the worship of golden calves have anything to do with the conflict between Yosef and his brothers? In light of what we have seen, this connection becomes abundantly clear. Yeravam, in an effort to solidify his power in the Northern Kingdom, took the liberty of introducing new modes of worship to directly oppose the worship in the Temple in Jerusalem. The measures he took entailed a clean break with tradition and a calculated decision to invent new religious rituals and laws. (According to many, most notably, the Sefer Ha-kuzari, Yeravam did not introduce the worship of the calves themselves, but rather established the worship of God by way of the golden calves.) The verse in Sefer Melakhim I (12:33) appears to emphasize this aspect of Yeravam's sin – personal innovation and the self-claimed right to change tradition – with the term, "asher bada mi-libo" ("which he invented himself").

Yosef thus warns his brothers about the potential repercussions of the liberty they took for themselves to make their own religious decisions rather than defer to their father's authority. However sincere their intentions may have been, too much independence and freedom from the teachings of Yaakov can ultimately degenerate into a clean break with tradition, as indeed occurred many generations later, with Yeravam's rise to power.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il