The War of God and Magog: The Haftara of Shabbat Chol Ha-moed Sukkot
The War of Gog and Magog:
The Haftara of Shabbat Chol Ha-moed Sukkot
By Harav Mosheh Lichtenstein
The haftara for Shabbat Chol Ha-moed Sukkot (Yechezkel 38:18-39:16), which deals with the war of Gog and Magog, is one of the most famous prophecies in Scripture. It has succeeded in taking hold of the human imagination and penetrating deeply into our cultural and religious consciousness. The destruction of the existing and imperfect world, the ultimate war against evil, the heavy price of blood, and God's victory over men of flesh and blood are powerful images that leave a profound impression on the human soul. Thus, this prophecy has become part of the inalienable property of the Jewish and general world.
It is quite understandable, then, that this prophecy was included in the haftarot cycle. However, its relationship to the festival of Sukkot is not at all clear, and is even surprising, for what is the connection between a blood-drenched world war and the festival of Sukkot? How does the sukka of peace connect to war, and what is the relationship between the refuge and shelter of the sukka and the destruction and desolation described in this prophecy?
The reading of the haftara of Gog and Magog on Shabbat Chol Ha-moed Sukkot is not merely a custom, but an obligation of Talmudic law. The gemara in Megilla (31a) mentions it along with the other haftarot read on the various holidays to this very day; we thus see that Chazal already saw an essential connection between the prophecy and the festival.
to this question, Rashi (Megilla 31a, s.v. be-yom) identifies the
war of Gog and Magog with the war fought in the end of days that is mentioned at
the end of the book of Zekharia in the chapter that serves as the
haftara on the first day of Sukkot. As Rashi puts it, "'On that day, when
Gog shall come' is the war mentioned in Zekharia in 'Behold, the day of
the Lord comes.'" Indeed, there is significant correspondence between these two
prophecies. Both deal with a future war of defense fought against nations
Based on this, we can explain why we read the story of Gog and Magog on Shabbat Chol Ha-moed Sukkot, for the prophecy in Zekharia makes explicit mention of the festival of Sukkot. According to Rashi, the two haftarot read on the festival of Sukkot deal with the terrible war that will take place in the future, "on that day," for they are one and the same war. On the first day of Sukkot, we read the account of that war as it appears at the end of the book of Zekharia, mentioning the festival of Sukkot at the conclusion, and on Shabbat Chol Ha-moed, we read Yechezkel's account of the same war.
This, however, is not so simple, for a new question arises in the wake of Rashi's proposal - namely, why are there two prophecies for a single event? Wouldnt one account of this future war have sufficed? Similarly, it should be noted that the festival of Sukkot is not mentioned in Zekharia in connection to the war itself, but in connection to the reaction to that war. Thus, we must ask whether the reaction to the war is also common to both Yechezkel and to Zekharia. Perhaps they part company in their descriptions of what happens in the aftermath of the war, in which case Zekharia's prophecy about the festival of Sukkot is not connected to the response appearing in Yechezkel.
There is a simple answer to the first question regarding the need to write two prophecies relating to the same event. Chazal provided us with an answer in the form of the well-known maxim that "two prophets do not prophesy in the same style." In its most comprehensive sense, this means not only that different prophets make use of different linguistic styles, but also that they present different perspectives on the same events. This is based on the assumption that multiple factors are always at play and that the same event can have various different ramifications.
Zekharia and Yechezkel's accounts of the war to be fought at the end of days
focus on different factors. Zekharia describes the war over
Similarly, the end of the book continues the thread that runs throughout the
book of directing the spotlight toward
then, that Zekharia's prophecy concerning the end of days reflects the
perspective adopted throughout the book and grows directly out of it. One point
regarding the haftara for the first day of Sukkot should, however, be
emphasized - its universal component. Following the description of
Yechezkel, on the other hand, presents a different approach. According to him,
the dramatic focus of the end of days is neither man's place in history, nor the
they came to the nations into which they came, they profaned My holy name, in
that men said of them, These are the people of the Lord, and they are gone out
of His land. But I had concern for My holy name, which the house of
In light of this perception, the war against Gog and Magog is also
understood as a war fought for the sanctification of God's name, and the battle
against the nations who have assembled together for war against
Thus I will magnify Myself and sanctify Myself, and I will make Myself known in the eyes of many nations; and they shall know that I am the Lord And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell securely in the coastlands; and they shall know that I am the Lord. So will I make My holy name known in the midst of My people Israel; and I will not allow My holy name to be profaned any more; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord, the Holy One in Israel. (Yechezkel 38:23, 39:6-7)
The reason for the redemption is not compassion for the nation, but rather so that "they shall know that I am the Lord." Thus, Yechezkel continues the approach that runs throughout these chapters and presents a foundation for redemption different than the one found in the book of Zekharia.
In light of this, the warfare conducted by way of supernatural means
becomes doubly significant. Since the focus of the struggle, according to this
prophecy, is the sanctification of God's name, the use of supernatural forces is
not only a powerful means to quickly subdue the nations. Rather, it has
fundamental, theological significance in that it demonstrates the greatness of
the Creator and His dominion over the world. If
The different ways in which Zekharia and Yechezkel present the war
reflect two fundamental perspectives on the world that differ from each other in
an essential way. On the one hand, the heavens belong to God, but the earth He
gave to man; therefore, the created world and all that takes place therein
should be seen as the place of man. The world was handed over to man, and what
happens there reflects human enterprise for better or for worse. The development
of the world, its physical and technological progress, the moral level of human
society, and the historical process were given over to man as a mission and a
challenge, and the world must be judged as expressing human achievement. Even
the condition of the people of
On the other hand, the world can be seen as an expression of Divine will and wisdom. God created the world and continues to watch over it, and the world and its development can be viewed as God's project. Appropriate governance, a well-established world, and providence that is executed in accordance with clear rules of reward and punishment sanctify the name of God and leave a powerful impression. An abandoned and forsaken world, and providence that allows the wicked and evil to flourish, cast doubt on the Creator's enterprise. The world is not man's handiwork, but rather that of God. To illustrate this point, it might be argued that just as the nature of a product and the support with which it is provided reflect the quality of the company that produced it, so too with respect to God who created the world, the quality of the product and the way that it is handled after it was handed over to man reflect God's wisdom and will.
One prophetic perspective presents what happens in the world from a human
angle and examines the processes of redemption and exile, repentance and
rebellion, according to their ramifications on the standing of the individual or
the nation. A second prophetic perspective examines the same processes from a
Divine perspective, and sees everything through the prism of the sanctification
and profanation of God's name. These two perspectives sometimes present
contradictory operative conclusions, and in such cases providence must decide
how to act. This is the case, for example, regarding redemption without
repentance (Yechezkel chapter 36), which is rooted in Moshe's prayer
following the sin involving the Golden Calf. Moshe's argument in favor of
the destruction of the
the time, however, these two perspectives overlap and share the same interests.
Therefore, the prophecies of Yechezkel and Zekharia with respect to the war to
be fought at the end of days present a similar picture and foretell identical
results, despite the fact that they approach the event from entirely different
perspectives. Yechezkel presents God as examining the war from His own
perspective and reaching the conclusion that a war must be fought against the
nations, whereas Zekharia prophesies about the fall of the nations because of
what they did to
of this, let us go back and discuss the connection between the haftara
and the festival of Sukkot. Just as the deliverance of
other hand, the sukka is the site of the Shekhina's presence in
the world, whether as a place protected by God as His own space, like the clouds
of Glory that shielded
us move on to the beginning of the haftara, which deals with the sin of
Gog. The sin seems to be clear Gog's oppression of the people of Israel and
the war that he conducts to capture Eretz Yisrael, as is stated in the
first verse of the haftara: "And it shall come to pass on that day, when
Gog shall come against the land of Israel, says the Lord God, that My fury shall
glare out" (38:18). Just as Zekharia describes a nation that will come to
however, that there is another important motif in the prophet's attitude toward
Gog, namely, the injury and damage that he inflicts upon the world. The war
causes damage to the world, both in the simple sense of physical destruction and
in the ethical sense of the moral decline stemming from the very fact of war and
going out to battle. Gog causes injury not only to the people of
latter years, you shall come against the land that is brought back from the
sword, and is gathered out of many peoples against the mountains of
Eretz Yisrael is described here as a demilitarized area, dwelling
in safety and open to the many peoples moving about in its midst. We are
presented with two situations an open world, without walls or borders, in
which nations freely come into contact with each other based on mutual trust,
versus a world of conflict and conquest, full of suspicion, in which nations
only come into contact with each other through the tips of their spears. In the
world preceding the world war begun by Gog, the various nations live in peace
and the land is settled and flourishing, whereas in the world in which Gog
rules, ruin and destruction reign. Gog's arrival undermines the relaxed and
optimistic world order that characterizes not only
Sheva, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all its young lions, shall say to you: Are you come to take a spoil? Have you gathered your company to take a prey? To carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil? (38:13)
The aforementioned verses precede the haftara, but they constitute
a single continuity with it and shed light on the haftara itself.
As we see, the focus of the haftara is not the people of
For in My jealousy and in the fire of My anger have I spoken saying: Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel; so that the fishes of the sea, and the birds of the sky, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at My presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground. (38:19-20)
The prophecy focuses on the world and the land, and not on the people,
because Gog's basic war and moral corruption is directed not against
It seems to me that this also explains why emphasis is placed on the burial. It is not because of his virtues that Gog merits burial, but because of the need to cleanse the land of all the signs of war and destruction and to restore the world to its earlier state. It is for this reason that Gog's weapons will be used for firewood, a fact that the prophet mentions not in order to emphasize the quantity of arms that Gog will possess, but rather as part of the process of purifying the land from the impurity of war that it had contracted. It is for this reason that emphasis is placed on the burial of the soldiers in order to purify the land and remove the reminders of war from its midst. Indeed, the haftara ends with the words, "thus shall they cleanse the land," which reflects the objective of the entire process which it describes.
context, it is important to note the meaning of purification. Purity (tahara),
as opposed to sanctity (kedusha), does not come to add anything new, but
to restore an impaired situation to its earlier state. The world, in its
original state, was pure. Impurity
constitutes a ruination of and deviation from the original order of the world, a
corruption and failure of the natural order, and the objective of purification
is to restore matters to their original state. If there is no impurity, there is
no need for purification, for the entire goal of purification is to restore
things to the state that preceded their ruination. Yechezkel, therefore,
prophesies about the purification of the land, because Gog destroyed the
existing situation of peace and calm and contaminated the land with the impurity
Here too there seems to be a connection to the festival of Sukkot. A sukka stands in contrast to a house, both in Scripture and according to the Halakha. Scripture presents these two concepts as different from and opposed to each other ("And he built himself a house (bayit), and made booths (sukkot) for his cattle" [Bereishit 33:17]). Halakha established that a sukka must be a temporary dwelling, and therefore even if it is made of valid materials, if it has the qualities of a house, it is regarded as a house, rather than as a sukka, and is disqualified. This means that a sukka belongs to the world of nature that was not yet touched by the hand of man, who alters and improves nature in accordance with his desires. It is supposed to be part of the natural scenery and to blend into it, "like a shelter [sukka] in a vineyard, like a lodge in a garden of cucumbers." Leaving one's house and permanent dwelling in order to enter the sukka means leaving a world that had been changed by man and going back to dwell in nature in its pure and original state. A sukka is not a process of building walls and creating sanctity, but rather a return to nature as it is, and therefore it corresponds to a haftara that speaks of the purification of the land and the restoration of the original natural state.
The haftara emphasizes this process of purification and return to nature in the wake of the destruction of the world by man. We, however, engage in this process once a year not because of destruction, but as part of creating of a proper balance between a natural and an artificial world, and as an expression of the importance of nature in the framework of the world and religious life. Serving God in the framework of nature is, of course, most striking in the mitzva of taking the four species on Sukkot, but the same principle of serving God in the field is also expressed in the mitzva of sukka.
 Another possibility exists - to assume that there is no connection between Sukkot and the war of Gog and Magog, but because we read from the prophecy of Zekharia as the haftara of the first day of Sukkot, we want to fill in the picture by reading as haftara another prophecy dealing with the same war from another perspective on Shabbat Chol Ha-Mo'ed Sukkot. This is based on the assumption that the haftara is an autonomous enactment meant to address man's existential state, and its choice is not necessarily dependent on the Torah reading or on the date. After dealing with the war of Gog and Magog from the human perspective and reading a passage that mentions the festival of Sukkot, we fill in the metaphysical perspective and read another haftara that deals with this war in close proximity to the haftara taken from Zekharia. This is done out of a desire to deal with the war and set it as the focus of the haftara, and not as an expression of the special sanctity of the day.
This point, however, requires clarification. I believe the above perspective is correct regarding the haftarot in general, but not of those read on the festivals. They should be closely connected to the festival inasmuch as they constitute a fulfillment of mikra kodesh, and therefore they are the only haftarot ordained by Talmudic law. This appears in the framework of a passage dealing with the laws of the festivals.
There is room, however, to question this assertion with respect to Shabbat Chol Ha-Mo'ed, for the status of Chol Ha-Mo'ed with respect to this issue is somewhat unclear. For our purposes, mention should be made of the disagreement between the Magen Avraham and the Vilna Gaon whether to recite the blessing "who sanctifies Israel and the festivals" over the haftara reading on Shabbat Chol Ha-Mo'ed Sukkot. The Vilna Gaon's opinion that the sanctity of the day is not mentioned assumes that the haftara of Shabbat Chol ha-Mo'ed is not a fulfillment of mikra kodesh, whereas the Magen Avraham's position that the sanctity of the festival is mentioned in the blessing recited over the haftara can be understood as assuming that it does constitute a fulfillment of mikra kodesh.
 The fall of Gog is described in the haftara in two consecutive closed parshiyot. There is room to suggest that the first focuses more on the destruction of the land and the world, whereas the second deals with a war against Gog because of what he did to Israel as a nation (this apparently is the way it was understood by those who divided the book into chapters, putting the first parasha into chapter 38 and the second into chapter 39). The validity of this distinction is, however, open to discussion.
 See also II Shemuel 11:11 and Yona 4:5.
 See Rashi, Sukka