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).