וזאת הברכה

The Final Verse of the Torah and the Yad Chazakah of Moshe

The last two verses in the Torah read as follows:

לְכׇל־הָאֹתֹת וְהַמּוֹפְתִים אֲשֶׁר שְׁלָחוֹ ה' לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם לְפַרְעֹה וּלְכׇל־עֲבָדָיו וּלְכׇל־אַרְצוֹ׃ וּלְכֹל הַיָּד הַחֲזָקָה וּלְכֹל הַמּוֹרָא הַגָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה לְעֵינֵי כׇּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל: (דברים לד:יא-יב)

Rashi explains that the Yad ha-Chazakah in the final verse refers to Moshe 'receiving of the Torah with his hands'. At first glance, Rashi's comments are surprising as he is allocating the ‘hand’ in the verse to Moshe and not to God, distinguishing it from earlier references where the Yad Chazakah phrase refers to God's actions. Rashi's final gloss adds a further twist:

שֶׁנְּשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ לִשְׁבֹּר הַלּוּחוֹת לְעֵינֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וָאֲשַׁבְּרֵם לְעֵינֵיכֶם" (דברים ט') וְהִסְכִּימָה דַעַת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְדַעְתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "אֲשֶׁר שִׁבַּרְתָּ" (שמות ל"ד) — יִישַׁר כֹּחֲךָ שֶׁשִּׁבַּרְתָּ

Not only is the Yad Chazakah appropriated for describing the uniqueness of Moshe, but the verse captures the standout event in which Moshe acts spontaneously rather than as 'messenger of God’ (see previous verse) – smashing the tablets given to him by God and inscribed by God himself.[1]

The Torah does not directly comment on God's reaction to Moshe breaking the tablets, though we may reasonably assume that he approved of the action.[2] It was this act which – according to Rashi - represented Moshe's crowning achievement and, ironically, which the Torah signs off on.

The boldness of Moshe's actions and the message to be derived therefrom, are further highlighted in the original text of the Talmud (unrelated to this verse) which Rashi weaves into his commentary: [3]

אמר ריש לקיש פעמים  שביטולה של תורה זהו יסודה דכתיב (שמות לד, א) אשר שברת אמר לו הקב"ה למשה יישר  כחך ששברת (בבלי מנחות צט:)

Whilst we may assume that Rashi's final comment has a pedagogical function,[4] the opening for such an interpretation arises from the oddity that the text appears to attribute the Yad Chazakah to Moshe's actions rather than God's.

Aware of the difficulty in the verse, Ramban explains that the verse simply means to say that Moshe was an instrument of implementation for the Yad Chazakah of God:

וטעם אשר עשה משה שהכין והראה זה לעיני כל העם כלשון ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן (בראשית יב ה) וימהר לעשות אותו (שם יח ז) לעשות את יום השבת (דברים ה׳:ט״ו) כי משה לא עשה היד החזקה והמורא הגדול רק הכין אותם ובעבורו נעשו לעיני כל ישראל

Though this may reflect the plain sense, it does not fully address the anomaly. As respectively pointed out in the supercommentaries of R. Eliyahu Mizrachi (1455-1525) and R. Shabbethai ben Joseph Bass (1641–1718), if this was the intent, the verse should say either אשר עשה ה' ביד משה or אשר עשה משה על פי ה'. In fact, God is not mentioned at all in the verse. The inescapable impression is that the Yad Chazakah is referring directly to Moshe and this requires explanation.

Unique leader or unique generation?

To appreciate the significance of our verse, we should compare with another passage in Devarim which I think contains the 'source' of our verse:

כִּי שְׁאַל־נָא לְיָמִים רִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר־הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ לְמִן־הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם עַל־הָאָרֶץ וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד־קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם הֲנִהְיָה כַּדָּבָר הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה אוֹ הֲנִשְׁמַע כָּמֹהוּ׃ הֲשָׁמַע עָם קוֹל אֱלֹהִים מְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ־הָאֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר־שָׁמַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַיֶּחִי׃ אוֹ הֲנִסָּה אֱלֹהִים לָבוֹא לָקַחַת לוֹ גוֹי מִקֶּרֶב גּוֹי בְּמַסֹּת בְּאֹתֹת וּבְמוֹפְתִים וּבְמִלְחָמָה וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרוֹעַ נְטוּיָה וּבְמוֹרָאִים גְּדֹלִים כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה לָכֶם ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם בְּמִצְרַיִם לְעֵינֶיךָ: (דברים ד:לב-לד)

The passage contains the same elements as our verse except for the fact our verse 'replaces' God with Moshe. In addition to the textual similarity, the function of both passages is similar insofar as both are used to highlight to the audience (or reader) a one-off phenomenon. The earlier verse discusses the unique experiences of the generation of the exodus and the later verse – with reference to the same events – relates the uniqueness of Moshe's prophecy and accomplishments.

The interplay between these verses suggests there is an interdependency between Moshe's unique status and God's special providence with respect to that generation. This should not be so surprising. It is surely not just fortuitous that the most elevated prophet lived in the generation destined to experience God's most intense revelation (described as a face to face encounter akin to Moshe's personal encounter). Put differently, Moshe's uniqueness as a prophet seems to have been an integral part of the exceptional providence and revelation experienced by that generation.[5]

The fact that Moshe was born with unique capability is already implied at the beginning of his life:

וַתַּהַר הָאִשָּׁה וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתֵּרֶא אֹתוֹ כִּי־טוֹב הוּא (שמות ב:ב)

The phrase 'she saw him that he was good' alludes to the story of creation where this refrain describes every process of creation but one. With the creation of man it is not written 'it was good' as the completeness of man can only be obtained through the exercise of freewill which is not predetermined. Yet in relation to Moshe's birth this is exactly what the Torah says. We need not be so extreme as to say that Moshe had no free choice,[6] however it suggests there was a strong element of providence with respect to Moshe's life including attaining his unique prophetic status.

Since revelation is a choice of God and not fixed into the natural order,[7] the Torah can therefore say with certainty that there will not be another prophet like Moshe - in the same way it can guarantee that there will not be a similar revelation as experienced by that generation. It is as much a comment about the special status of that generation as it is about the personal achievement of Moshe.

By attributing God’s wonders to Moshe and refraining from any specific reference to God, the verse alludes to the pitfalls of overdependency and the danger of confusion between God and messenger. In doing so, the verse provides an insight (and critique) regarding Moshe's character as leader which also defines the generation he led. It thereby establishes the limits of such leadership (necessary and formative though it was) and provides the reason a leadership transition was required for the next generation as they entered the land. 

Moshe's hands and God's hands

Though this is the only occasion that the Yad Chazakah refers directly to Moshe, this is not the first time that God's hands are seemingly 'switched' for Moshe's hands. The most explicit revelation of the hand of God is of course at the splitting of the sea:

וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַיָּד הַגְּדֹלָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה' בְּמִצְרַיִם וַיִּירְאוּ הָעָם אֶת־ה' וַיַּאֲמִינוּ בַּה' וּבְמֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ (שמות יד:לא)

The passages immediately following the splitting of the sea consist of a series of challenges the nation faced on their journey to Mt Sinai. The series culminates in the battle of Amalek which contains many contrasting features with the battle of the sea (the first in the series). The progression of the series is a complex topic in of itself, however relevant to our discussion is the focus on Moshe's hands. Instead of seeing God's mighty hand, the people now see the hands of Moshe and it is Moshe's own hands that appear to be steering the course of the battle.

The absence of God in the battle of Amalek is so striking that it led the Sages to ask rhetorically whether Moshe's hands were really controlling the outcome:

וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים משֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ' (שמות יז), 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. (משנה ראש השנה ג:ח)

As discussed in a previous post the overreliance on Moshe and the need for leadership diffusion, are major themes in the battle of Amalek. This is symbolised in Moshe's faltering hands and the required support provided by Aharon and Chur. This same theme feeds into the advice provided by Yitro to appoint judges in order to reduce the dependency on Moshe.

Subsequently, when Moshe ascends Mt Sinai we are reminded through various ways of the previous ascent at the time of the battle of Amalek. Only this time the tablets (containing the 'words' of God) are in Moshe's hands instead of the staff. By forming the golden calf in Moshe's absence, however, the people demonstrated how deeply entrenched their dependency on Moshe was. They were not yet ready to replace the staff of God with the words of God. As a result, Moshe's hands falter and the tablets are smashed.[8] 

As discussed on many occasions the period in the wilderness must be seen as a period of maturation for the newborn nation. During this stage of development, it was necessary to have an elevated leader with a direct channel of communication with God to instantaneously address their needs. The goal was that these formative years would stay forever ingrained in the national memory as emphasized on many occasions throughout the book of Devarim. However, the model was not intended for the long term as it creates a cycle of dependency on miracles and on Moshe. The negative effects of such dependency were plainly evident in the episode of the golden calf and - as alluded to above – were not wholly unexpected. God therefore planned to ween them off their dependency to enable them to stand on their own feet – both physically and spiritually.

Moshe's legacy therefore lies in representing the Yad Chazakah of God. As discussed above, as a conduit for revelation there is the inherent danger that the Yad Chazakah is attributed directly to him and Moshe becomes a substitute address for God.[9] It is this tension which is reflected in the ambiguity of our verse as to whether the Yad Chazakah is that of God or of Moshe.

Following a similar theme, R. Yoel Bin Nun argues that the song of Ha’azinu as the conclusion to Devarim is a foil to the song at the sea which he calls the song of the 'Yad Chazakah'. The song at the sea was a euphoric response to Divine salvation. Such was the unilateral nature of that intervention that even prayer was not called for:

ה' יִלָּחֵם לָכֶם וְאַתֶּם תַּחֲרִישׁוּן׃ וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה מַה־תִּצְעַק אֵלָי דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִסָּעוּ׃ (שמות יד:יד-טו)

Ha’azinu in contrast, is intended to be sung in the depth of crisis where faith must be mustered through listening and not passive spectation:

הַאֲזִינוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וַאֲדַבֵּרָה וְתִשְׁמַע הָאָרֶץ אִמְרֵי־פִי (דברים לב:א)

זְכֹר יְמוֹת עוֹלָם בִּינוּ שְׁנוֹת דּוֹר־וָדוֹר שְׁאַל אָבִיךָ וְיַגֵּדְךָ זְקֵנֶיךָ וְיֹאמְרוּ לָךְ (דברים לב:ז)[10]

It is the song of the sea which is the legacy of Moshe's leadership whereas the song of Ha’azinu is reserved for the next generation and only taught following the appointment of Yehoshua.

The Torah emphasizes that these were the characteristics of that generation but not a model for the future. The world of Moshe and the generation of the exodus was one of signs and wonders – the power of the hand, whilst post-entry to the land it would be one of listening to the word of God.

 

---

[1] It is worth adding that the smashing of the tablets - assuming it was deliberate - is seemingly at odds with the prohibition of destroying holy objects which Moshe will later command (see Devarim 12:3-4)

[2] Rashba derives this from the fact that the broken pieces were placed in the ark (though this is also not explicitly mentioned in the text). The Mizrachi quotes the Rashba but notes that the Talmud understood that God approved from the redundancy in the verse (Shemot 34:1) '…the first tablets which you smashed'. See also the Torah Temimah commentary of R. Baruch Epstein (1860-1941) on the above verse which neatly explains the exegesis.  

[3] The Sifri sees a reference to the breaking of the tablets in the final verse but Rashi adds the passage from the Talmud in Menachot which is not mentioned in the Sifri.

[4] In terms of peshat, Rashi's explanation is difficult as there is no (clear) hint to the breaking of the tablets in the verse. Furthermore, the second half of the verse does not describe an additional event and Rashi already interpreted the Yad Chazakah as referring to the receiving of the tablets. The pedagogical function is particularly relevant as these are the final words of his commentary (compare to the opening comments on the first verse of the Torah).

[5] It can also be seen that Moshe's prophetic distinction is intrinsically linked to the status of the nation during the esoteric dialogue at the 'cleft of the rock':

וְעַתָּה אִם־נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ הוֹדִעֵנִי נָא אֶת־דְּרָכֶךָ וְאֵדָעֲךָ לְמַעַן אֶמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה כִּי עַמְּךָ הַגּוֹי הַזֶּה (שמות לג:יג)

וּבַמֶּה יִוָּדַע אֵפוֹא כִּי־מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ אֲנִי וְעַמֶּךָ הֲלוֹא בְּלֶכְתְּךָ עִמָּנוּ וְנִפְלֵינוּ אֲנִי וְעַמְּךָ מִכָּל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר עַל־פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה (שמות לג:טז)

[6] Such a suggestion is made by the Meshech Chochma of R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (1843-1926) in the introduction to Shemot. He contends this was necessary to guarantee that Moshe would perfectly transmit the Torah. But even he only claims this happened once Moshe had exercised his freewill to arrive at such a level.

[7] Contrary to the view sometimes attributed to Maimonides based on his various statements about God's immutability and acquisition of prophecy

[8] According to Rashbam Moshe's hands really do falter due to his dismay. Even if the action is deliberate, the literary impression is the opposite of the battle of Amalek. It should be noted that the textual parallels with the battle of Amalek are mostly contained within the passage where Moshe comes down the mountain and breaks the tablets.

[9] We have previously suggested (see here) that the Yad Chazakah is also reflected in Moshe's own character. Commencing with the actions of his ancestor Levi in Shechem, continuing with the first action of his career when he (rashly?) smites the Egyptian, and ending when he smites the rock instead of engaging his power of speech. At the burning bush Moshe says perceptively about himself he is 'not a man of words' which seems to be a deep statement of character rather than a particular speech impediment. In the same dialogue, Moshe argues the people will not heed his voice and is only reassured when God provides him with miraculous signs and promises they will 'listen to the voice of the signs'. It is therefore not surprising that Moshe's leadership is ultimately taken away from him when he fails to exchange the power of the staff for words. 

[10] R. Yoel Bin Nun (see here) also shows that, from the vantage point of Devarim, signs and wonders are associated with the false prophet whilst speech becomes the characteristic of the true prophet.