פורים

Understanding the Megillah postscript

Model leadership in exile

On the surface, the Megillah is a story set firmly within the Babylonian-Persian exile, far removed physically and spiritually from the concurrent events taking place in Israel. Unlike the story of the Exodus, it is not a rescue from a foreign land and there is no mass return to the land of Israel. In fact, there is just a single background reference to the land of Israel in the entire Megillah. Not only do the Jewish people remain in Shushan but they thrive there, and even finish in a stronger position than where they started.

From this perspective, Mordechai and Esther represent the ideal exilic leaders, rising to the top of the social hierarchy whilst staunchly maintaining, and actively fighting for, their Jewish identity and religious faith. Within this model, it is sustainable for Jews to live and even prosper in the diaspora.

To accentuate the exilic atmosphere, the Megillah takes the literary form of a Persian chronicle. The opening frame of reference is 'the days of Achashverosh' with a subsequent description of the grandeur of his reign and apparently limitless wealth. The Megillah ends by closing the circle on the reign of Achashverosh:

"All his mighty and powerful acts, and a full account of the greatness to which the king advanced Mordechai, are recorded in the Book of Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia."

This verse is familiar to us from other places in Tanach where such a refrain is deployed to close off the chapters of various kings of Israel and Judah. This is the only place, however, where it is used in reference to a non-Jewish king. The purpose is to create a pretence that these events are recorded purely from a Persian perspective. Readers tend to see this ending as rather anti-climactic, but it is entirely consistent with the form of the Megillah intended to mimic a Persian chronicle.   

The Persian writing convention is retained throughout (albeit in satiric form), with exaggerated descriptions of pomp and ceremony at each stage. God is entirely absent, and the king of Persia is centre stage. Every turn in the story is activated by Achashverosh and nothing can happen without his approval. The king alone determines who will live and who will die, who will fall and who will rise. The power of the king's ring is absolute and irreversible.

But of course, all this is laced in irony. The king makes all the decisions yet has no opinion of his own. Not one significant decision is rendered which is not initiated and shaped by someone else. On the surface he controls everything, but in reality controls nothing. The king who made the chauvinistic decree that 'every man should rule in his own house', ends up doing everything that his wife (Esther) tells him.  

The Yosef paradigm

The theme of God's providence extending into exile to ensure Jewish survival, is at the heart of the well-known connections between the story of Yosef and the Megillah, existing on both the thematic and textual plane. Esther and Yosef both rise to a position power in a foreign land. They both hide their identities and ultimately reveal them. In the Yosef story, the tragedy starts when he is sold into slavery, whilst in Megillah the Jews are sold out to Haman. In both stories, the turning point takes place when the king's sleep is disturbed and then resolved when a previous forgotten deed/person is recalled (both involving two guards/servants). Mordechai and Yosef are both led through the city in honour and both are recipients of the king's ring.[1]

Some of these connections were already noted by Chazal:

וַיְהִי כְּאָמְרָם אֵלָיו יוֹם וָיוֹם (אסתר ג, ד), רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר רַבִּי לֵוִי, בָּנֶיהָ שֶׁל רָחֵל נִסָּן שָׁוֶה וּגְדֻלָּתָן שָׁוָה. נִסָּן שָׁוֶה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (בראשית לט, י): וַיְהִי כְּדַבְּרָהּ אֶל יוֹסֵף יוֹם יוֹם, וְכָאן כְּתִיב: וַיְהִי כְּאָמְרָם אֵלָיו יוֹם וָיוֹם וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם, וּלְהַלָּן כְּתִיב (בראשית לט, י): וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֵלֶיהָ לִשְׁכַּב אֶצְלָהּ. וּגְדֻלָּתָן שָׁוָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (בראשית מא, מב): וַיָּסַר פַּרְעֹה אֶת טַבַּעְתּוֹ מֵעַל יָדוֹ וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָהּ עַל יַד יוֹסֵף וַיַּלְבֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ בִּגְדֵי שֵׁשׁ, וְכָאן כְּתִיב: וַיָּסַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת טַבַּעְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱבִיר מֵהָמָן וַיִּתְּנָהּ לְמָרְדֳּכָי. לְהַלָּן כְּתִיב (בראשית מא, מב): וַיַּרְכֵּב אֹתוֹ בְּמִרְכֶּבֶת הַמִּשְׁנֶה אֲשֶׁר לוֹ וַיִּקְרְאוּ לְפָנָיו אַבְרֵךְ, וְכָאן כְּתִיב: וְנָתוֹן הַלְּבוּשׁ וְהַסּוּס וְקָרְאוּ לְפָנָיו כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הַמֶּלֶךְ חָפֵץ בִּיקָרוֹ. (אסתר רבה, ז)

וּמׇרְדֳּכַי יוֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ קָצַף בִּגְתָן וָתֶרֶשׁ אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הִקְצִיף הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָדוֹן עַל עֲבָדָיו לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹן צַדִּיק וּמַנּוּ יוֹסֵף שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְשָׁם אִתָּנוּ נַעַר עִבְרִי וְגוֹ׳ עֲבָדִים עַל אֲדוֹנֵיהֶן לַעֲשׂוֹת נֵס לַצַּדִּיק וּמַנּוּ מָרְדֳּכַי דִּכְתִיב וַיִּוָּדַע הַדָּבָר לְמׇרְדֳּכַי וְגוֹ׳. (בבלי, מגילה יג:)

Whilst one can find local significance to some of the specific correspondences, the overarching intent is to set Yosef as a historical precedent and perhaps inspiration, for the roles taken up by Esther and Mordechai. At great personal risk, Esther reveals her identity as she attempts to win over the king's favour. At the same time, Esther and Mordechai remain fully cognisant of God's role in orchestrating the events and moving the pieces into place. As with the Yosef episodes, it represents a model of dual causality. The Divine providence does not force anything but works in tandem with human initiative, setting up the circumstances to enable the human actors to take decisive action.

The cynical face of the Megillah

Despite the above, the masking of the story within a Persian chronicle, suggests an ambivalence on the part of the author. Great as the salvation was, the events are subsumed within Persian history. Whilst in exile, the story of the Jewish people cannot stand independently to that of the host nation. They may succeed in influencing and shaping the decisions of the leaders, but they remain subservient and dependent on the host nation. In addition to the precarious physical existence, they are by default part of that value system (and perhaps integrally so). This is far from the ideal state of the Jewish nation as a 'light unto the nations'.          

Though one might question the conclusion above based on the form of the Megillah alone, there can be little doubt that the strong literary allusions to the land of Israel and the Bet HaMikdash, especially when considered in the overall historical context, act as a criticism to the complacency of exile. As will be shown, this criticism remains until the very end of the Megillah. 

Regarding the historical context, there is a dispute when exactly the Purim story takes place. According to the view of Seder Olam, Achashverosh succeeded Koresh who authorised the return of the exiles (perceived as prophetic fulfilment – see Ezra 1:1). According to others, Achashverosh reigned after Darius some thirty to forty years after the second Bet HaMikdash was already built. According to either view, it was after the divinely inspired proclamation of Koresh and thus the story of the Megillah relates to those who, for whatever reason, decided to remain in the diaspora. The contrast in circumstances of the two communities is striking. Whilst the Jews in the Land of Israel are struggling to survive whilst trying to rebuild the Bet HaMikdash, the Jews in Shushan are enjoying themselves at Achashverosh's feast. [2] 

The allusions to the Bet HaMikdash include the following:

In the opening scene, the terms 'yekar' and 'tif'eret' and 'techelet, butz, ve'argaman' are associated elsewhere in Tanach with the Bet HaMikdash and the Kohen Gadol (see Megillah 12a). The 'various vessels' used at the feast, as already pointed out by Chazal, may allude (at least in literary terms) to the vessels of the Bet HaMikdash. Even the length of the celebration, the 180 days followed by additional 7 days may correspond to the six months spent building the Mishkan followed by the 7 days Milu'im. The suggestion of Chazal that the feast celebrated the termination of Yirmeyahu's prophecy of return – though difficult to accept on the literal level – also seems rooted in these linguistic parallels.[3]

On several occasions the city of Shushan is referred to as Shushan HaBirah. Whilst generally translated as Shushan 'the capital', the only other usage in Tanach of the term Birah is in reference to the Bet HaMikdash.

וְלִשְׁלֹמֹה בְנִי תֵּן לֵבָב שָׁלֵם לִשְׁמוֹר מִצְוֺתֶיךָ עֵדְוֺתֶיךָ וְחֻקֶּיךָ וְלַעֲשׂוֹת הַכֹּל וְלִבְנוֹת הַבִּירָה אֲשֶׁר־הֲכִינוֹתִי (דברי הימים א, כט:יט)[4]

The palace of Achashverosh is itself modelled on the Bet HaMikdash, notably containing a Chatzer Penimit – an inner chamber – where unauthorised entry results in death, corresponding to the Kodesh haKodashim. The apprehension of Esther to enter this chamber certainly recalls the fear of the Kohen Gadol before entering the Kodesh HaKodashim on Yom Kippur. The outer courtyard, where the 'ro'ey penei haMelech' were allowed to go may correspond to the Kodesh with its limited entry to the Kohanim. Finally, the 'sha'ar bet haMelech' where Mordechai sat but mourning was prohibited, parallels the Azarah.

In summary, from the perspective of the Megillah, Shushan has replaced Yerushalayim, Achashverosh's palace has replaced the Bet HaMikdash, and the King of Persia has replaced the King of Kings.

The bittersweet ending

Considering the above, it is important to reconcile the implicit criticism levelled at the Jews in the exile with the Yosef paradigm mentioned earlier. It was, after all, Yosef who actively encouraged his family to leave in Israel and join in him in Egypt. To understand this paradox, we revisit the end of the Megillah:

וַיָּשֶׂם הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ מַס עַל־הָאָרֶץ וְאִיֵּי הַיָּם... (אסתר י:א)

The textual significance of the tax has troubled many commentators. Even if a tax was required to pay for Achashverosh's excesses, this is hardly sufficient to justify the inclusion of this verse. It is difficult to see what would be missing from the story without this added detail.

As a first step, it is interesting to note that economic policy was a central theme in the Yosef story as well. In a great display of foresight, Yosef collects the grain from across the country in the years of plenty in order to provide for the country during the lean years. In contrast, Achashverosh spares no expense in his lavish parties (there are no fewer than 10 in the Megillah!) and 'showing off his riches'.[5] His early generosity even includes a tax holiday for his kingdom. When the dust settles, however, the tax collectors come calling. The apparent beneficiaries of Achashverosh's limitless wealth will be the ones to foot the bill when boom turns to bust. Such cynicism serves to cast suspicion on any benevolence or goodwill displayed by the Persian king. This is important for contextualising the final two verses:

וְכָל־מַעֲשֵׂה תָקְפּוֹ וּגְבוּרָתוֹ וּפָרָשַׁת גְּדֻלַּת מָרְדֳּכַי אֲשֶׁר גִּדְּלוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ הֲלוֹא־הֵם כְּתוּבִים עַל־סֵפֶר דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים לְמַלְכֵי מָדַי וּפָרָס׃ כִּי מָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי מִשְׁנֶה לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ וְגָדוֹל לַיְּהוּדִים וְרָצוּי לְרֹב אֶחָיו דֹּרֵשׁ טוֹב לְעַמּוֹ וְדֹבֵר שָׁלוֹם לְכָל־זַרְעוֹ׃ (אסתר י:ב-ג)

How are we to relate to this? The other place where a similar expression is found is where Haman boasts about his own power:

וַיְסַפֵּר לָהֶם הָמָן אֶת־כְּבוֹד עָשְׁרוֹ וְרֹב בָּנָיו וְאֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר גִּדְּלוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר נִשְּׂאוֹ עַל־הַשָּׂרִים וְעַבְדֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ (אסתר ה:יא)

Arguably this is part of the general pattern of reversal in the Megillah. It seems more likely, however, that this verse, as with so much of the Megillah, contains no small measure of irony. How reliable is a position of power granted by Achashverosh? The self-interest and fickleness of Achashverosh as evidenced in the Megillah, suggests that it is just a matter of time before the pendulum swings the other way.[6] On a more general level, this is part of the inherent instability of the exile to which the Megillah alludes.

This brings us to our final point. It is possible, as Jonathan Grossman proposes, that the conclusion of the Megillah contains one final textual allusion to the story of Yosef. The one other place in Tanach where the expression to 'impose (lit. to place) a tax/tribute' appears is none other than the continuation of the Yosef story:

וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ־חָדָשׁ עַל־מִצְרָיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדַע אֶת־יוֹסֵף... וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלָיו שָׂרֵי מִסִּים לְמַעַן עַנֹּתוֹ בְּסִבְלֹתָם (שמות א:ח-יא)

If this connection is indeed intentional, then if it supports a subverted reading of the postscript which parodies a happy ending. The success of Yosef, with all the good it brought, was short-lived. As is so often the case in Jewish history, the power which Yosef and the nation acquired, became a source of resentment. The sober ending of the Megillah thus sends a message that there inevitably will come a time when a new king [or the same king with a change of heart!] will arise who does not know Mordechai.

Sources and further reading:

J. Grossman, Esther: The Outer Narrative and the Hidden Reading (Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scripture, 6, 2011), https://www.etzion.org.il/en/topics/megillat-esther

M. Leibtag, https://tanach.org/special/purim/purims1.htm

M. First, Roots & Rituals: Insights into Hebrew, Holidays and History (Kodesh Press, 2018), p.214-218, https://seforimblog.com/2013/02/identifying-achashverosh-and-esther-in/

 

 

 

---

[1] A fairly comprehensive list of these parallels can be found in the introduction to the Da'at Mikra volume on Megillat Esther. 

[2] Notably the harsh poverty in the Land of Israel was related to the high taxes imposed by the king (see Nechemia 5:4) - a point which may be relevant to our discussion below regarding Achasverosh's tax at the end of the Megillah.

[3] There is a notable irony here given the fact that Koresh had already authorised the return of the people, hence the lack of prophetic fulfilment was a consequence of the overwhelming decision of the Jewish community to remain in Shushan (only 40,000 people decided to return). The criticism of Chazal (Megillah 12a) that the Jews joined in the feast takes on new meaning in light of this background.

Leibtag also notes there are precisely 70 days (=70 years) between when the first letters were sent out announcing Haman's decree (13th Nissan), and when the second letters were sent out on Mordechai's instruction (23rd Sivan).    

[4] The term Birah is also used in reference to the Bet HaMikdash in the Mishna (see Midot 1:9).   

[5] Like Yosef, Achashverosh also undertakes an intense gathering and storage exercise. Rather than gathering grain for the people, however, it is women which are gathered and stored for personal gratification.

וְיַפְקֵד הַמֶּלֶךְ פְּקִידִים בְּכָל־מְדִינוֹת מַלְכוּתוֹ וְיִקְבְּצוּ אֶת־כָּל־נַעֲרָה־בְתוּלָה טוֹבַת מַרְאֶה אֶל־שׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה אֶל־בֵּית הַנָּשִׁים אֶל־יַד הֵגֶא סְרִיס הַמֶּלֶךְ שֹׁמֵר הַנָּשִׁים וְנָתוֹן תַּמְרוּקֵיהֶן (אסתר ב:ג)

יַעֲשֶׂה פַרְעֹה וְיַפְקֵד פְּקִדִים עַל־הָאָרֶץ וְחִמֵּשׁ אֶת־אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּשֶׁבַע שְׁנֵי הַשָּׂבָע׃ וְיִקְבְּצוּ אֶת־כָּל־אֹכֶל הַשָּׁנִים הַטֹּבֹת הַבָּאֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְיִצְבְּרוּ־בָר תַּחַת יַד־פַּרְעֹה אֹכֶל בֶּעָרִים וְשָׁמָרוּ׃ (בראשית מא:לד-לה)

[6] A cynical reading of this verse, albeit from a slightly different angle, is also proposed by Chazal (Megillah 16b) and Ibn Ezra.

יתרו

The Meaning of Moshe's Fatigue

Parashat BeShalach closes with the episode of Amalek's ambush. Moshe stands (then sits) with his hands raised at the top of the mountain whilst Yehoshua leads the battle down below. Read superficially, the positioning of Moshe's hands dictates the course of the battle. Whilst Moshe's hands are raised high, the Jewish people have the upper hand in battle; when they are lowered, Amalek are on the front foot. Moshe's arms begin to tire so Aharon and Chur step in to support them, thereby ensuring they stay aloft until the battle is effectively won.

The episode from beginning to end is shrouded in mystery. For the purposes of this discussion, I would like to focus on one particular question; what is the significance of Moshe's arms tiring? From a practical perspective it is very understandable. It is indeed exhausting to raise one's arms for such a long period and therefore unsurprising that Moshe required physical assistance. The resolution involving Aharon and Chur is equally practical. However, it is precisely the mundaneness which forces us to question what this element of the story contributes. Moreover, the physical challenges were presumably more pronounced on the battlefield below, yet no detail is provided. Against this background, the intricate focus on Moshe's fatigue demands explanation.

We can shed meaning on this passage with the assistance of two other passages - the splitting of the sea and Yitro's judicial reforms.

Back to the splitting of the sea

One of the key themes which underscores the episode of splitting of the sea is the passivity of the people compared to the active role of God. The people are mere spectators as God wages war against the Egyptian army. They are explicitly told 'stand still and see the salvation of God… God will fight for you and you will hold your peace'.

The correspondences between the episode of the splitting of the sea and the battle against Amalek, serve to highlight the sharp contrasts between them:

מלחמת עמלק (שמות יז)	קריעת ים סוף (שמות יד)
וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים מֹשֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכַאֲשֶׁר יָנִיחַ יָדוֹ וְגָבַר עֲמָלֵק	וַיִּרְדֹּף אַחֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יֹצְאִים בְּיָד רָמָה... וְאַתָּה הָרֵם אֶת־מַטְּךָ וּנְטֵה אֶת־יָדְךָ עַל־הַיָּם וּבְקָעֵהוּ
מָחָר אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל־רֹאשׁ הַגִּבְעָה וּמַטֵּה הָאֱלֹקים בְּיָדִי	הִתְיַצְבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת־יְשׁוּעַת ה'
בְּחַר־לָנוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְצֵא הִלָּחֵם בַּעֲמָלֵק	ה' יִלָּחֵם לָכֶם וְאַתֶּם תַּחֲרִישׁוּן
וִידֵי מֹשֶׁה כְּבֵדִים	וְאִכָּבְדָה בְּפַרְעֹה וּבְכָל־חֵילוֹ בְּרִכְבּוֹ וּבְפָרָשָׁיו
וַיַּחֲלֹשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־עֲמָלֵק וְאֶת־עַמּוֹ לְפִי־חָרֶב	וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת־הַיָּם לֶחָרָבָה וַיִּבָּקְעוּ הַמָּיִם
וַיִּבֶן מֹשֶׁה מִזְבֵּחַ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ ה' נִסִּי	וַיֹּאמֶר מִצְרַיִם אָנוּסָה מִפְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי ה' נִלְחָם לָהֶם בְּמִצְרָיִם׃
וַיַּחֲלֹשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־עֲמָלֵק... מִלְחָמָה לַה' בַּעֲמָלֵק מִדֹּר דֹּר	וַיָּשֻׁבוּ הַמַּיִם וַיְכַסּוּ אֶת־הָרֶכֶב וְאֶת־הַפָּרָשִׁים לְכֹל חֵיל פַּרְעֹה הַבָּאִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם בַּיָּם לֹא־נִשְׁאַר בָּהֶם עַד־אֶחָד
וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה עַד־בֹּא הַשָּׁמֶשׁ	וַיִּירְאוּ הָעָם אֶת־ה' וַיַּאֲמִינוּ בַּה' וּבְמֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ
כְּתֹב זֹאת זִכָּרוֹן בַּסֵּפֶר וְשִׂים בְּאָזְנֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ	אָז יָשִׁיר־מֹשֶׁה

The splitting of the sea is dominated by God's mighty hand, whilst the hands of Moshe and the sword of Yehoshua, dominate the battle against Amalek. In the case of Egypt, God declares that he will personally fight the battle and the people are instructed simply to watch, whilst in the battle against Amalek, Yehoshua actively selects men to wage war. There is in fact no explicit reference to God except with respect to the commemoration.[1] The victory against Egypt is absolute, whilst the victory against Amalek is difficult, incomplete, and the war is continuous. At the splitting of the sea the Egyptian chariots are made to struggle, whereas in the case of Amalek, it is Moshe's hands which struggle. The emunah of the people upon seeing the mighty hand of God, contrasts with the emunah of Moshe's hands. The battle against the Egyptians climaxes in the morning, whilst the battle against Amalek concludes in the evening. The song of the sea celebrates a decisive victory, whereas the commemoration of the battle of Amalek presents Yehoshua with a future task to take care of the unfinished business.

The idea is fairly well known. The splitting of the sea presented a one-off phenomenon demonstrating once and for all that God determines the outcome of battle. As the people matured it would be expected that they take on an active role in battle whilst not losing sight of God's guiding hand. The combination of Moshe's hands raised heavenward and Yehoshua fighting the battle down below signifies this ideal framework. To complete the picture, however, we still need to understand the relevance of Moshe's faltering hands and the supporting roles of Aharon and Chur. For this we turn to parashat Yitro.

Understanding the contribution of Yitro

Those who note the juxtaposition of Amalek and Yitro usually focus on Yitro as the antithesis of Amalek. Reacting to the miracles of the exodus, Amalek attacks the Jewish people whilst Yitro embraces them. According to Ibn Ezra this is the reason the arrival of Yitro is reported at this juncture, notwithstanding that he only arrived after Matan Torah:[2]

ובעבור שכתוב למעלה מלחמה לה' בעמלק. שישראל חייבים להלחם בו כאשר יניח השם להם. הזכיר דבר יתרו כי הם היו עם גוי עמלק שיזכירו ישראל חסד אביהם ולא יגעו בזרעו. והנה ראינו הרכבים שהם בני יתרו היו עם בני ישראל בירושלים

This approach is supported by the fact that Amalek and Yitro are similarly juxtaposed in the prophecies of Bilaam (Bamidbar 24:20-21), and again immediately prior to Shaul's attack on Amalek (Shmuel I, 15:6).

True as this might be, it is noteworthy that a close comparison of the stories of Amalek and Yitro yields numerous parallels, yet they are materially focused on the second half of the story concerning Yitro's contribution to the judicial reforms:

מלחמת עמלק (שמות יז)	יתרו (שמות יח)
וַיָּבֹא עֲמָלֵק	וַיָּבֹא יִתְרוֹ
מָחָר אָנֹכִי נִצָּב	וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת
וַיִּקְחוּ־אֶבֶן וַיָּשִׂימוּ תַחְתָּיו וַיֵּשֶׁב עָלֶיהָ	וַיֵּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת־הָעָם
וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה עַד־בֹּא הַשָּׁמֶשׁ	וַיַּעֲמֹד הָעָם עַל־מֹשֶׁה מִן־הַבֹּקֶר עַד־הָעָרֶב
מָחָר אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל־רֹאשׁ הַגִּבְעָה	מַדּוּעַ אַתָּה יוֹשֵׁב לְבַדֶּךָ וְכָל־הָעָם נִצָּב עָלֶיךָ
וִידֵי מֹשֶׁה כְּבֵדִים	כִּי־כָבֵד מִמְּךָ הַדָּבָר לֹא־תוּכַל עֲשֹׂהוּ לְבַדֶּךָ
וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים (דברים כה:יח)	וְאַתָּה תֶחֱזֶה מִכָּל־הָעָם אַנְשֵׁי־חַיִל יִרְאֵי אֱלֹהִים
וְאַהֲרֹן וְחוּר תָּמְכוּ בְיָדָיו מִזֶּה אֶחָד וּמִזֶּה אֶחָד	וְהָקֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ וְנָשְׂאוּ אִתָּךְ
וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּחַר־לָנוּ אֲנָשִׁים	וַיִּבְחַר מֹשֶׁה אַנְשֵׁי־חַיִל
מִלְחָמָה לַה' בַּעֲמָלֵק מִדֹּר דֹּר	וְגַם כָּל־הָעָם הַזֶּה עַל־מְקֹמוֹ יָבֹא בְשָׁלוֹם

Most strikingly, the underlying theme is very similar. On his own, Moshe struggles against the weight of a load which can only be resolved by outside support to share the burden. What is the meaning of this?

Over the course of events leading up to the battle with Amalek, a clear pattern has emerged: the people are faced with a problem, the people complain to Moshe, and God responds with a miraculous solution delivered in some way through Moshe. When Moshe says that he will stand at the top of the mountain with God's staff in hand, there is no hint that this occasion will be any different. But tire he does. The paradigm of Moshe as an all-powerful leader who can solve each problem with another miracle is unsustainable and will eventually falter.

Exclusive reliance on a single figure is dangerous for two primary reasons. One, inevitably it leads to backsliding and despair when the leader is absent or dies. This is exactly what happened when Moshe's prolonged absence on Mt. Sinai led to the episode of the golden calf and the tragic consequences which followed. Second, the existence of a diverse leadership with a variety of role models can stimulate self-belief. Absent such diversity, everyone lives in the shadow of the one brilliant individual. Right after the exodus, whilst the nation was still in embryonic form, it was indeed necessary to have a strong inspirational leader who could singlehandedly address all their needs. However, this was not a long-term solution. Like any child growing up it would be necessary to ween them off their dependence and educate them to stand on their own feet. The battle with Amalek represented a key milestone on this front.

This idea is symbolised in the support which Moshe receives. On the one side is Aharon, of the tribe of Levi, representing the spiritual leadership. On the other side is Chur, of the tribe of Yehudah. The only fact written in the Torah about Chur is that he was the grandfather of Bezalel, the genius at the centre of the construction of the Mishkan - the very place in which Aharon and his sons would serve. Thus, Chur and Aharon together represent the physical-spiritual partnership needed to ensure that Moshe's teachings may spread outward to the people.

Interestingly, the literary image of Aharon and Chur at Moshe's side is not just one of support, but also of balance:

וְאַהֲרֹן וְחוּר תָּמְכוּ בְיָדָיו מִזֶּה אֶחָד וּמִזֶּה אֶחָד וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה עַד־בֹּא הַשָּׁמֶשׁ (שמות יז:יב)

Possibly, this may be related to the description of the tablets which Moshe subsequently received at Mt. Sinai:

וַיִּפֶן וַיֵּרֶד מֹשֶׁה מִן־הָהָר וּשְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת בְּיָדוֹ לֻחֹת כְּתֻבִים מִשְּׁנֵי עֶבְרֵיהֶם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה הֵם כְּתֻבִים (שמות לב:טו)

The ten commandments engraved on the two tablets, presumably held one in each hand, is suggestive of a form of balance representing the interdependence of the first five commandments consisting of matters between Man and God, and the second five comprising matters between Man and his fellow. It is noteworthy that in the very next verse, as Moshe approaches Yehoshua, there are also strong echoes of the battle of Amalek:

וַיִּפֶן וַיֵּרֶד מֹשֶׁה מִן־הָהָר וּשְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת בְּיָדוֹ לֻחֹת כְּתֻבִים מִשְּׁנֵי עֶבְרֵיהֶם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה הֵם כְּתֻבִים׃ וְהַלֻּחֹת מַעֲשֵׂה אֱלֹקים הֵמָּה וְהַמִּכְתָּב מִכְתַּב אֱלֹקים הוּא חָרוּת עַל־הַלֻּחֹת׃וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־קוֹל הָעָם בְּרֵעֹה וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־מֹשֶׁה קוֹל מִלְחָמָה בַּמַּחֲנֶה׃ וַיֹּאמֶר אֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה וְאֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת חֲלוּשָׁה קוֹל עַנּוֹת אָנֹכִי שֹׁמֵעַ׃ (שמות לב:טו-יח)

Additionally, when Moshe ascends Mt. Sinai, the text once again takes note of Aharon and Chur as if recalling the previous ascent during the battle with Amalek (though this time it is emphasised that they are left at the bottom of the mountain):

וְאֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים אָמַר שְׁבוּ־לָנוּ בָזֶה עַד אֲשֶׁר־נָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם וְהִנֵּה אַהֲרֹן וְחוּר עִמָּכֶם מִי־בַעַל דְּבָרִים יִגַּשׁ אֲלֵהֶם (שמות כד:יד)

In any event, the underlying message of Aharon and Chur supporting Moshe, appears to relate to the future leadership, and the necessary transition away from the exclusive reliance on Moshe's leadership. As the nation would mature it would be crucial for a variety of leaders to emerge in the distinct areas of political, religious and social life. Initially, all these powers were vested in Moshe, however, as described in sefer Devarim, different strands of leadership would be required upon entry into the land, including a king (or equivalent political leader), a prophet, priests, and judges. As represented by the trio in the battle of Amalek, all need to operate with a shared goal of raising God-awareness in the world.

Whilst the symbolism of Aharon and Chur supporting Moshe's hands relates to national leadership, Yitro's reforms are far closer to home:

כִּי־יִהְיֶה לָהֶם דָּבָר בָּא אֵלַי וְשָׁפַטְתִּי בֵּין אִישׁ וּבֵין רֵעֵהוּ וְהוֹדַעְתִּי אֶת־חֻקֵּי הָאֱלֹקים וְאֶת־תּוֹרֹתָיו (שמות יח:טז)

The judges Yitro seeks to appoint are intended to solve day to day disputes and administer justice, thus ensuring that peace and justice prevail in the camp.[3] Aharon and Chur help Moshe direct the nations towards God, whilst the reforms of Yitro assist Moshe to enhance the social wellbeing of the people. These two aspects embody the fundamental values at the heart of the Torah they would imminently receive.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] The issue of God's absence in the passage describing the battle against Amalek is the backdrop to the famous Mishnah:

וְכִי יָדָיו שֶׁל משֶׁה עוֹשׂוֹת מִלְחָמָה אוֹ שׁוֹבְרוֹת מִלְחָמָה. אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לְךָ, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִים כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם הָיוּ מִתְגַּבְּרִים. וְאִם לָאו, הָיוּ נוֹפְלִין (ראש השנה ג:ח)

[2] This is a subject of dispute between Ramban and Ibn Ezra. Modern commentators continue to debate the same point.

[3] Significantly, when the battle against Amalek resurfaces in Devarim, it is also juxtaposed the passages which emphasise social justice (see Devarim 25:13-19).