The title seems provocative; why should anyone expend effort to find favor for Yeravam [Jereboam in English]? Long judged by history as the worst of scoundrels, one to whom every king of Israel would be held accountable, Yeravam’s actions removed him from this world and the next (Mishnah Sanhedrin 90a– Yeravam is one of the three kings who does not have a share in the world to come). Yet, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 102a) suggests that Yeravam merited Divine attention even after his radical innovations transformed the destinies of two kingdoms.
“Even after this incident, Yeravam did not turn back from his evil way,” (1 Kings 13:33) After what incident? R. Abba said: After this, G-d grabbed Yeravam by his cloak [note the medrashic allusions to Shaul] and said to him “Return, and I, and you, and the son of Yishai (David) will walk together in the Garden of Eden.” Yeravam asked, “Who will go first?” G-d replied, “The son of Yishai.” “If so,” refused Yeravam, “then I don’t want to go.”
Regarding the new cloak that Yeravam wore when he first encounters the prophet Achiya haShiloni (1 Kings 11:29), the Talmud states (ibid.):
What is the meaning of “a new cloak”? Rav Nachman stated that Yeravam was comparable to a new cloak – just as a new cloak has no stains, so too Yeravam had no sins.”
Not only Rabbinic tradition held Yeravam in high esteem; the Biblical text did so also. Kings 1 details his rise to greatness with allusions to both David and Moshe. Understanding Yeravam’s potential, we wonder at his failures. Clearly, we must investigate what motivated his reformations. Only then, will we appreciate how this heroic figure so tragically failed.
With the Judean army’s retreat from the nascent kingdom (as Divinely mandated – see 1 Kings 13:21-24), the new king finds himself in Shechem (today’s Nablus). The text continues:
25 Then Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill-country of Ephraim, and dwelt therein; and he went out from thence, and built Penuel.
26 And Jeroboam said in his heart: 'Now will the kingdom return to the house of David.
27 If this people go up to offer sacrifices in the house of HaShem at Jerusalem, then will the heart of this people turn back unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah; and they will kill me, and return to Rehoboam king of Judah.'
28 Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold; and he said unto them: 'Ye have gone up long enough to Jerusalem; behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.'
29 And he set the one in Beth-el, and the other put he in Dan.
30 And this thing became a sin; for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.
31 And he made houses of high places, and made priests from among all the people, that were not of the sons of Levi.
32 And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he went up unto the altar; so did he in Beth-el, to sacrifice unto the calves that he had made; and he placed in Beth-el the priests of the high places that he had made.
33 And he went up unto the altar which he had made in Beth-el on the fifteenth day in the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and he ordained a feast for the children of Israel, and went up unto the altar, to offer.
Why does Yeravam build Shechem, and why the move to Penuel? The careful reader notes the subtle allusion to the building projects of his rival, Shlomo. The text (ch. 9) extensively describes Shlomo’s building projects - palaces, fortresses, and storehouses. The text is mute to the extant of Yeravam’s constructions. This portrays Yeravam positively – he is not Shlomo, whose accomplishments were due to the forced labor and high taxes he inflicted upon the Jewish people. However, Yeravam moves to Penuel. Two possible explanations: first, Shechem, while being Efrayim’s historical capital, was also home to Levites and Kohanim (as a city of refuge). If Yeravam remained in Shechem, his ability to enact his far-reaching religious reforms would have been severely hampered. Second, Yeravam is purposefully retracing the history of the Jewish people in his travels – Shechem was the first destination city of father Avraham when he came to Israel; Penuel the location where father Jacob re-entered the land. Compared to the upstart city of Jerusalem in the south (note to the reader – at this point in time, Jerusalem was less then a hundred years in Jewish control, and was primarily viewed as ‘the City of David’, the centers of Shlomo’s grandiose excesses), these cities were firmly entrenched in the historical consciousness and affections of the people. In Penuel, Yeravam decides upon a series of religious reforms. (Which the people enthusiastically receive – the text reveals no hint of dissension). He enacts three reforms – erecting two golden calves, one at Beersheba and one at Dan; establishing a new holiday, and appointing new priests in place of the Levites. What do these reforms have in common?
In the ancient world, the land connected a people to its god. Each city in Greece had its minor deity, each country its pantheon. Yeravam faced the challenge of maintaining political sovereignty without religious autonomy. As long as the south controlled G-d’s Temple, the north’s legitimacy would remain in doubt. With these guidelines, let us look at Yeravam’s reforms.
We shall deal first with the replacement of the Kohanim and Levites. Divrei haYamim (Chronicles in English) records how the priests and Levites fled to Judah for several years after Yeravam took power in the north (see 2 Chr. 11:13-17). Who replaced them? The text merely states that Yeravam chose them. (Divrei haYamim, as is typical, is more critical, calling them “the priests for the shrines, goat-demons, and calves” (ibid. v. 15)). However, Yeravam’s fealty to history suggests a different possibility. Before the Kohanim and Levites were chosen to serve G-d, who was expected to serve? The firstborn. Ideally, each family had one member dedicated to the service of G-d. This ideal was realized at Mount Sinai, when the firstborn brought offerings during the Giving of the Torah [see Rashi, Exodus 24:5; and the Meshech Chochma who posits in Bemidbar 11:1 that the original rumblings against Moshe’s leadership (the ‘mitonennim’) were a result of the people’s anger against Moshe’s transfer of leadership to the Levites]. It’s not inconceivable that Yeravam decided to revive the ancient practice, a democratic move bound to be popular among his constituency.
The second reform was establishing a new holiday, one month after the holiday of Sukkot. What purpose would this serve? The date, the fifteenth, carries tremendous historical connotations in the Israeli mind (Passover, Sukkot). Some suggest that eighth month was the end of the fruit harvest, more prevalent in the north. Sukkot, in the seventh month, signified the end of the grain harvest in the south. If so, then Yeravam again managed to innovate appropriate for his constituency, yet not weaken his people’s historical roots.
The final and most notorious reform was the establishment of the golden calves at Beth-El and at Dan. Choosing Beth-El seems obvious – it had been the center of religious life for the Jewish people for hundreds of years. Yet the text immediately alludes to the infamous Golden Calf of Exodus (including the same claim - “These are your gods who took you out of Egypt!”) What advantage would this imagery provide Yeravam? (Comparing Yeravam to Aharon, who made the original desert calf, including the mutual death of two sons (by Aharon, Nadav and Avihu; and by Yeravam, Nadav and Aviyah), needs to be developed further).
The first explanation suggests that multiple altars equaled a return to the system of ‘bamot’, where any consecrated altar could serve as a vehicle for sacrifices. Again, Yeravam is returning to an earlier form of worship, as the Mishnah states (Ohalot 14:4):
Until the Mishkan (Tabernacle) was established, the firstborn offered the services and bamot (private altars) were allowed. When the Mishkan was established, the priests offered the sacrifices and the bamot were forbidden.
The Mishnah continues with the periods when the Mishkan was not settled, at which points service on bamot were permitted, until the building of the Temple, when bamot were permanently banned. Historically, the custom of offering on bamot remained throughout almost the entire First Temple period. If so, then Yeravam’s reforms were a return to institutions that had strong historical antecedents. Their decentralizing nature likely made his reforms extremely popular.
A second interpretation focuses on the imagery of the two calves strategically placed, the land of Israel lying between them. Bovine imagery symbolizes the sacred in several places. In Yechezkel (Ezekiel), it appears repeatedly in the descriptions of the Divine Throne/Chariot. Chapter 1, verse 7 states that the feet of the animals appears as the feet of a calf. More importantly, from two descriptions of the Chariot, we see the following. The first time that Yechezkel sees the faces of the four animals that surround the Chariot, he sees a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle (1:10). The second time that Yechezkel describes the Chariot, he sees a KRUV (cherub), a man, a lion, and an eagle’s face. From the parallelism, we see that the cherub (KRUV) was equal to the cow!! [In Aramaic, The root K.R.V. equals the Hebrew to plough (H.R.SH.)]. The two calves served as two cherubs, K’RUVIM, who extended protection over the entire land. Again, Yeravam’s actions are the antithesis of Solomon’s Temple, where the holiness is concentrated in the Kodesh K’doshim (Holy of Holies), where the Aron is covered by two cherubs (KRUVIM). Yeravam is intentionally declaring that unlike in the south, here, all the land is holy.
Upon analysis, we see that Yeravam’s actions were deft, calculating. They appealed to historical romance and democratic yearnings. Yeravam attempted to provide his people with a religious outlet that was inspired by historical ideals while recognizing present realities. Jewish History contains many antecedents of movements that claimed to decentralize holiness. Hashem himself noted, while the Mishkan was being built, that He intended to dwell among all his people. However, this movement also contains the likes of Korach, Datan, and Aviram. They rebelled under the mantle of “Is not the entire congregation holy?” However, Korach’s challenge did not lead to Moshe’s utopic dream of “If only the entire people were prophets!” Instead, destruction and the pit awaited. Unfortunately, Yeravam would share their fate instead.
