The Mysterious Disappearance of Chur Finally Explained

Chur was a central character and leader in the early history of the Jewish nation, yet his fate is unceremoniously ignored. What actually happened to Chur and why does the text forget it?

The character of Chur is as cryptic as he is important. The earliest mention of Chur is Shmot 17:10-12 which details how Chur and Aharon assisted Moshe during the battle against Amalek. The nation was facing its most lethal threat since their recent freedom from Egypt and Chur was one of only two men trusted to assist Moshe. Later Chur is assigned as co-leader with Aharon during Moshe’s absence while he ascends har sinai (24:14). Both stories specifically equate Chur with Aharon in terms of hierarchy and reliability. Subsequently, Chur is never mentioned again. Chur is obviously a secondary character, but he is important enough, and central to Moshe and leadership, that he is comparable to the other important characters from this period, such as Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and the zekenim (elders). Interestingly, all of these secondary characters share another common detail except for Chur. All of them sin and their fates are detailed. Aharon builds the egel and ultimately dies at hor hahar. Nadav and Avihu bring the foreign incense and are burned alive. The zekenim peer at the divine and disrespectfully eat and drink but are spared destruction (24:11). Only Chur lacks any further information about his fate. He has no documented evil and we never learn of his death. What actually happened to Chur and why was it so unimportant that we learn of his fate?

This question as to the fate of Chur bothered the rabbis so much that they were compelled to explain away the problem. Midrashic literature attempts in many places to answer this obvious question. There are multiple references to how Chur met his demise, all of which are fairly similar. Rashi in fact notes that Chur died twice. First he died in 32:5 noting he rebuked the people for the egel and they killed him and later Rashi notes that Chur ‘also’ died in 32:6 when the people arose early in the morning and were licentious. Rashi notes that “here too chur was murdered.” There are multiple midrashic sources that all essentially say either Chur died because he rebuked the people or refused to make them an idol, so they killed him (e.g. Vayikra Rabbah 10:3, Sanhedrin 7a, Midrash Tanchuma Ki Tisa 19:2, 20:2, Shemot Rabbah 41:7, 48:3, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 45:2-3, Bamidbar Rabbah 15:21, Midrash Tanchuma, Beha’alotcha 14:1, Midrash Tanchuma, Vayakhel 4:6, Midrash Tanchuma, Tetzaveh 10:6, etc.). Regardless of the immediate cause, the conspicuity of Chur’s absence despite his station and prior accolades was compelling enough to inspire many scholars throughout history to proffer or reiterate other’s explanations for his unstated demise. Overall, the rabbis assume Chur was a righteous victim of the chaotic sin that surrounded the egel. An explanation that is completely contrived, lacking any source from the text. However, the text itself does provide a far more compelling explanation, albeit somewhat cryptically encoded. An answer that is not as difficult to derive as much as it would likely have disturbed the rabbis to consider.

There is a curious exchange that happens later in the same story. Following the sin of the egel hazahav (Golden Calf), Moshe ascends the mountain and begs for God’s mercy. He explains that the people sinned greatly but should be forgiven, otherwise he, Moshe, should be removed from the book (Shmot 32:31-32). God corrects Moshe and explains that only “those that sin against Me I will erase from my book (32:33).” This insight implies a hierarchy of sin. The highest level being sins that are ‘against God.’ That type of offense is punished by erasure. Similar to how we see the crimes of Amalek are punished with erasure from under heaven (Shmot 17:14 and Devarim 25:19). Additionally, the generation of the flood was found to be irreconcilably evil and therefore erased from the land (Bereshit 6:5-7, 7:4,23). Although a different word, it is reminiscent of the concept of karet, excision. A punishment reserved for the most heinous of spiritual crimes which is intended to sever that person from the nation eternally, effectively soul erasure (e.g. Bereshit 17:14, Shmot 12:19, 30:33,38, 31:14, Vayikra 7:20,21,25,27, 17:4,9, 18:29, etc.). Curiously, one would have thought that the sin of the egel would have been equally deserving of erasure, yet it is not mentioned once throughout the story in Shmot. 

While recounting events before his death, Moshe retells the story of the egel but includes a curious detail left out of the egel story in Shmot. Moshe notes that God wanted to ‘erase’ Israel from the world as a result of their sin with the egel hazahav (Devarim 9:14). Thus, the sin of the egel was egregious enough to warrant erasure. Yet, the nation including Aharon were forgiven by God despite their explicit guilt. Therefore, why even mention the fact that the sin was deserving of erasure if no one was erased? A far more succinct use of precious textual space would have been to keep things consistent and only note how God wanted to destroy the nation for the sin, as in the story in Shmot. This is a curious hint that there was someone involved in the sin of the egel that was erased that Moshe remembers but the text actively forgot. Erased so completely that his very presence is removed, sin and demise. This person’s sin at the egel must have been even more egregious than the rest of the nation to deserve the punishment they were spared. Even the details of that sin that deserved erasure were erased. Aharon built the egel and the people served the egel, yet both were spared erasure. What could be worse? 

A careful reading of the story demonstrates that Aharon complied with the people to make for them a god. He gathered the gold and ultimately made the molten calf. However, such a casting required a mold, which the text explains he somehow possessed (Shmot 32:4). Why would there be a calf mold? That is something that would require the skill of an artist. Not just any artist, but one of remarkable skill to be able to create such a mold on the spot. Such talent and skill is often passed down in families of artisans. Curiously, there is a single additional mention of Chur in the book. He is the grandfather of Betzalel (31:2, 35:30), the chief architect and artist of the mishkan (Tabernacle). It seems reasonable to conclude that the Golden Calf was facilitated by Aharon who was compelled by the people, but Chur made it possible by eagerly making the mold for Aharon to use. A sin specifically detailed only 40 days before when Moshe first came down from the mountain to deliver the commandments he had received. A sin of such magnitude that it is not only included in the ten commandments as a generic prohibition against idolatry (20:4) but is also specifically prohibited to make a molten god to be joined with God (20:20). Prohibitions that were delivered to the people the day before Moshe went back up the mountain and left Chur in charge. Thus it was a sin against God so egregious that Chur was punished by being erased from the book with only hints left to provide the curious mind an answer to his absence.