“But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim’s head, though he was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head—thus crossing his hands—although Manasseh was the first born.” (Genesis 48:14)
“So he blessed them that day saying, ‘By you shall Israel invoke blessings, saying: God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh.’ Thus he put Ephraim before Manasseh.”(Genesis 48:20)
Preceding the story of Ephraim and Manasseh, we have two stories of the younger taking the position of the first-born: Isaac instead of Ishmael and Jacob instead of Esau. In the case of Isaac, he is the son of Abraham’s wife Sarah, but he is born after Abraham’s concubine, Hagar, has given birth to Ishmael. God tells Abraham to do what Sarah wants (send Ishmael away) and not to worry, for Ishmael will father a nation. (Genesis 21:12). As for Jacob it is with his mother’s assistance that he tricks Isaac into giving him the first-born blessing, and consequently its entitlement, instead of Esau.
In the story of Ephraim and Manasseh, there is no father sending away the eldest, there is no mother advancing the interest of her son and no deceit. The election of Ephraim by Jacob is deliberate, but we are not provided with any history or any particular motivation for it. So if there we cannot see a reason for it stemming from external circumstances, we then turn to look at his internal qualities for an explanation.
According to the commentary of the Chofetz Chaim, a famous Lithuanian rabbi who lived at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, Ephraim was selected because of his humility. “Because he made himself small, he merited greatness.” [A later note: a reason why Hillel’s rulings overwhelmingly prevailed over Shammai’s]
In the Bible, there are many subsequent stories in which the underdog, the younger, the more humble, is the one chosen to lead, for example, Moses, the younger brother, is described as being humble and he was chosen to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, rather than the older Aaron.
We can take the Chofetz Chaim’s explanation in two ways. First, as a political commentary, it could mean that the Jews who were the underdogs, the smaller population, the population at the mercy of the majority, would triumph in the end. And this, of course, was based on the reality of the political lives of Jews in Eastern Europe at that time.
However, in my opinion, it is more likely that this is a comment on the personal attribute of humility, an attribute he valued highly, and which was manifest in the way he led his life.
A Story from his life:
The Chofetz Chaim’s wife packed a lunch for him when he went to study in the Beit haMidrash (academy). She found out, that he did not eat most of the food she had made, preferring instead to give it to the hungry and the needy. She insisted that he should come home to lunch.
Rabbis Scherman and Gevirtz write, “He agreed and put his time at home to good use. He would write his Torah comments at home where no one could see him. In his modesty, he did not want onlookers to know what an accomplished scholar he was.” (p. 58)*
Rabbi Peggy de Prophetis
Congregation Beth Sholom
Dover, DE
