The Great Educational Challenge
Yisrael stretched out his right hand and placed [it] on Ephraim’s head, although he was the younger, and his left hand [he placed] on Menashe’s head. He guided his hands deliberately, for Menashe was the firstborn.
Bereshit 48:14
A person can know with certainty that he succeeded in educating his children only when he sees the conduct of his grandchildren. And even then one cannot be entirely sure.
In the story of Yaakov’s struggles with his children’s upbringing, the Torah, in a most consistent fashion, alerts us to the extreme difficulty of successful parenting. In particular, the way he handled his sons’ delicate relationships is a source of considerable controversy.[1] After demonstrating a greater level of love and devotion to his son Yosef, the brothers became embroiled in a major rift, which ultimately led to one of the great tragedies in Jewish history — the enslavement of the people of Israel in Egypt for 210 years.
One would readily be able to forgive Yaakov for making this mistake if the root of the problem lay in his relative inexperience in the field of education. But if that were the case, why then did he make the same mistake when dealing with his grandchildren? Why did he openly favor Yosef’s children over the children of his other sons? Indeed, Yaakov only seems interested in Yosef’s sons, Ephraim and Menashe. We never read a single word about the other brothers’ sons,[2] nor do we hear anything about Yaakov’s relationships with them. This complete silence is telling. Yaakov seems to have given time and attention only to Ephraim and Menashe. Only with them did he converse. Even more astonishing is the fact that they were the only grandchildren who received Yaakov’s special blessings before he died.
As if this were not enough blatant favoritism, Yaakov openly favored one of Yosef’s sons over the other! When blessing Ephraim and Menashe, Yaakov went out of his way to bless the younger (Ephraim) before the older (Menashe)! [3] Did he not remember the disastrous consequences of showing this sort of bias in front of his own sons? Should he not have learned his lesson by now? No longer can we excuse Yaakov’s behavior as youthful inexperience and indiscretion!
From Suffering to Blossoming
Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky, in his monumental work Emet Le-Yaakov,[4] calls our attention to the difference between the names that Yosef gave his two sons. Both, as is well known, were born in Egypt. When the oldest was born, Yosef called him Menashe, ki nashani Elokim.[5] Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch translates this verse as, “because God has made my trouble and all my paternal house into creditors to me.” When his second son was born, Yosef named him Ephraim, “because God has made me blossom (ki hifrani Elokim) in the land of my affliction.” [6]
There is a remarkable difference between these two names. When naming Menashe, Yosef made reference to the pain of living in a foreign country, with strong feelings of nostalgia for his father’s house. Although he thrived in, and even ruled, his foreign home, his whole personality objected and rebelled against Egypt’s idolatrous culture. He refused to take part in it, however deeply involved he became in its governmental administration. By the time Yosef had to choose a name for his second son Ephraim, however, it seems that some kind of metamorphosis had taken place within him. While he was still aware of his unusual position as an Israelite in a strange land, he had somehow come to feel more comfortable in his new home. “God has made me blossom in the land of my affliction.” [7]
The distinction is most telling. While there is little doubt that Yosef remained, throughout all his life, first and foremost an Israelite, the hostile climate of Egypt obviously exerted an influence. Yosef had to adapt himself, at least externally, to survive and succeed in his new environment, and this must have played a role in shaping his ultimate identity. Often, a person remains unaware of slight changes taking place within his personality. Assimilation is a slow and, at the start, unrecognizable process. It is only when others make us aware, that we realize what we have become.
From this perspective Yaakov’s choices as a grandfather become more comprehensible. Ephraim and Menashe were the only two grandchildren who were not born and raised in close proximity to Yaakov. While the other grandchildren grew up in Yaakov’s home, nurtured by the land of Israel, Ephraim and Menashe came of age in a foreign country and never got to experience their grandfather and the nurturing environment of his thoroughly “Jewish” home.
Surely this must have worried Yaakov greatly. The question of how these grandchildren would maintain their “Jewish” identities in such spiritually hostile surroundings must have been on his mind constantly. Yaakov therefore proclaims to Yosef, “Now your sons who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Menashe shall be mine like Reuven and Shimon.” [8] In other words, I will have to draw them back into the family before they are lost.
This interpretation, however, does not explain why he favored Ephraim over Menashe.
By looking beneath the surface, we can conclude that there must have been a major difference in the education these two sons received. By the time Ephraim was born, Yosef, not yet fully involved with the administration of Egypt and still more of a foreigner, had already made an indelible mark on his son Menashe’s young psyche. Surely Yosef communicated clearly that, although I am the second ruler in this country, always remember that this does not affect my loyalty towards my God and my people. We are first and foremost Israelites.
But by the time Ephraim was born, Yosef’s feelings of being a foreigner had faded somewhat; and without the constant reinforcement of a strong and unwavering message of Jewish identification, his younger son’s development was necessarily more vulnerable to external influences.[9]
Susceptibility
As such, Yaakov was right to worry more about Ephraim’s spiritual training than Menashe’s. He knew that Ephraim was much more susceptible to the “kulturgesellschaft” (cultural society) of Egypt, having grown up in the sweet but toxic atmosphere of Pharaoh’s palace. It was therefore necessary, for the sake of the future of the Jewish people, for Yaakov to give more time to Ephraim than to Menashe. He needed to instill in him “Jewish” values and to uproot the negative influences from his childhood. Menashe, by contrast, came from a relatively stronger “Jewish” background and hence needed less special attention. Clearly this was even more the case for the rest of his grandchildren, all of whom were born in the land of Israel and raised on Yaakov’s knees. No doubt, all of them were well-aware of their assimilated cousin’s precarious situation, and may have even have encouraged Yaakov to give Ephraim more of his time and attention.
This could also explain why Yaakov placed his right hand on Ephraim’s head, and gave him a stronger blessing than his older brother. Since he was more exposed to the culture of Egypt, he and his descendants would need a greater level of encouragement and Divine assistance. In taking this approach, we see that Yaakov in fact, did not repeat the mistake of favoring one child over another without specific cause and proper reason.
Most interesting is the fact that the child who suffered more from exposure to external influences was destined to overtake his brother, who received a much better “Jewish” education. Yaakov explicitly states about Menashe that, “He will also become a people, and he also will be great, nevertheless, his younger brother will be greater than he, and his seed shall become full to the nations.” [10]
This is indeed a remarkable turnaround. Why should the child who was more exposed to the secular world have a brighter future than the one who received a much stronger and more traditional education?
In fact, this also seems to be the case with Moshe Rabbenu, who was raised by a non-Jewish mother and educated in Pharaoh’s palace, and nevertheless grew up to become the greatest Jew in history, as well as the greatest Jewish prophet and leader. Were there no better candidates? Perhaps someone blessed with a proper Jewish education? Why select an assimilated Jewish boy, who may not have even known that he was an Israelite until later in life?
Courage and strength
The answer is that a person who has to fight for his Jewish identity will, in the end, have more courage and strength to stand up to outside influences precisely because he has participated in, and gained a familiarity with, the outside world. Moshe was the ideal leader because he was raised in a culture that opposed Jewish values and thus had to prove and build his character through many inner spiritual battles.
Looking into the blessing that Yaakov gave to Ephraim, we encounter a similar idea. Yaakov tells him that he will “become full to the nations.” While there exist many possible explanations for this unusual expression, we may suggest that Ephraim’s tribe would, more than any other, possess the power to stand strong against the forces of assimilation. Rashi clearly alludes to this in his commentary when he writes, “All the world will be filled with the glory [of Yehoshua who was a descendant of Ephraim] when his fame and his name will go forth….” [11]
It is most revealing that Jewish parents have, since ancient times, blessed their children with the blessing suggested by Yaakov Avinu: “With you shall Israel bless, saying: May God make you as Ephraim and Menashe.” [12]
Yaakov’s blessing expresses the delicate balance between the need for a strong “Jewish” identity and the capacity to interact with the outside world. Finding this middle path is far from easy, and trying to do so has been a source of constant problems throughout Jewish history. Too much introversion leads to dangerous isolation, because it soon becomes impossible to relate to the greater community of human beings, which in turn prevents us from fulfilling our function as a “light unto the nations.” Too much adaptation, however, brings with it an essential loss of identity which leads inevitably to assimilation and devastation. To locate the right equilibrium requires a special blessing indeed, and this is precisely what we hope for our children when we bless them with the words of Yaakov Avinu, grandfather par excellence.
Questions to Ponder from the DCA Think Tank
- Rabbi Cardozo presents the non-Jewish environment in which Ephraim and Menashe (and Moshe) grew up as uniformly negative. The only advantage of growing up in such an environment is that it presented a test of character, and those who pass the test and resist the outside influences are thereby strengthened. Do you think this is the only benefit of being exposed to non-Jewish culture and the “greater community of human beings” or are there positive benefits too? If so, what do you think are the positive benefits of such exposure?
- If growing up in a non-Jewish environment is a test of character, there is a risk that only the exceptional few will pass the test; a select few will rise to greatness but many will be lost to assimilation. Is there an argument, then, for saying that Jewish communities should close themselves off as much as possible from their outside environment?
- If closing oneself off from the non-Jewish environment is not a realistic possibility, what are the educational challenges that follow from this? What kind of Jewish education offers the best hope for sustaining a strong Jewish identity and commitment in the face of pressure to assimilate? Should children attending Jewish schools be shielded from potentially controversial topics (for example, issues of sexual identity) or should these be confronted head on? Are there issues of age-appropriateness? What other features of Jewish education are essential for instilling a strong Jewish identity and commitment?
- In what ways do you think the Jewish people and the State of Israel are, or could be, a “light unto the nations” in the modern world? Do you think the Jewish people today gives sufficient attention to its role as a “light unto the nations”? If yes, what are some specific ways in which this idea manifests itself? If no, how do you think Jewish practice would or should change if it were to take seriously the Jewish responsibility to be a “light unto the nations”?
Notes
[1] Bereshit 37.
[2] With the exception of Yehuda’s two sons who died.
[3] Bereshit 48:13-20.
[4] See Emet Le-Yaakov on Bereshit 41:51, 48:5.
[5] Ibid. 41:51.
[6] Ibid. 41:52.
[7] See Emet Le-Yaakov that this can also be seen from the fact that Ephraim is not so much a Jewish as an Egyptian name. It is similar to the words, Pharaoh, Potifar, Shifra and Puah.
[8] Bereshit 48.
[9] According to this interpretation, some extended time must have passed between the births of the two brothers, which is unclear in the text.
[10] Bereshit 48:19.
[11] Ad loc.
[12] Bereshit 48:20.
