Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:29-30

"Appoint for me a helper" means an assistant in bearing the burdens of what You have charged me with. Regarding its derivation, it is from the wizr (with a kasra then a sukun), meaning a heavy load. It is originally a descriptor based on that, meaning one who possesses a wizr—that is, one who carries a heavy burden. The one in charge of a king’s affairs is named by this because he carries the burden and weight of matters for him.

Alternatively, it may be from al-wizr (with two fathas), originally meaning a mountain in which one takes refuge, then used to mean a shelter generally, as in the saying: "The worst of predatory beasts has a refuge (wizr) beside it, and among mankind, the worst of them has no refuge beside it." A king's vizier is named as such because the king takes refuge in his opinion and relies upon him in his affairs. It is a fa'il form in the sense of maf'ul (passive), involving ellipsis and linkage—meaning one who is taken as a refuge—or it is for attribution (nisbah).

It is said: its origin is azir from al-azr (meaning strength), so it is a fa'il in the sense of mufa'il (active), like ashir (companion) and jalis (sitter); its hamza was changed to a waw, just as it was changed in muwazir, and it was changed because of the damma preceding it. Wazir is synonymous with this, so the latter was modeled upon the former, and modeling a like upon a like is frequent in their speech. However, muwazir has been heard without the substitution, while azir has not been heard without it. Moreover, given the presence of a clear derivation, which is the aforementioned, there is no need for this derivation or the claim of substitution.

Its grammatical position is that it is a second object (maf’ul thani) for "appoint" (ij'al). It is placed before the first object, which is His saying ("Aaron"), out of concern for the status of the vizierate, as it is the thing requested. "For me" (li) is a connection to "appoint" or is attached to an elided term, functioning as a state (hal) of "helper," as it is originally a descriptor for it. "From my family" is either a descriptor for "helper" or a connection to "appoint."

It is said that its two objects are "for me a helper" and "from my family" according to the two aforementioned views. "Aaron" is an explanatory appositive ('atf bayan) for "helper," based on what Al-Zamakhshari and Al-Radi held: that it is not a condition that the appositive and the noun it modifies must both be definite or both indefinite. It is also said: it is a substitute (badal) for "helper," though this is contested on the grounds that it would then be the object of the intent, whereas the vizierate itself is the primary object of intent here. It is also permissible to consider it as being in the accusative case by a suppressed verb in response to "appoint"—i.e., "Appoint Aaron." Others say its two objects are "a helper from my family" and "for me" is a clarifying element, as in suqyan lahu (a watering for him).

This is countered by the objection that a condition for the object in the category of nawasikh (verbs like ja'ala) is that a nominal sentence must be able to be formed from them. If one were to begin with "a helper" and predicate "from my family" about it, it would not be valid, as there is no justification for beginning a sentence with it. It is answered that the intention of the speaker is that "from my family" is the first object, by interpreting it as "some of my family," as if one had said: "Appoint some of my family as a helper." It was placed forward out of concern for it, and the soundness of the meaning requires it. It is not hidden that this is somewhat strained.

From this, it is said that it is better to say the justification for beginning with an indefinite noun here is the coordination of the definite noun—which is "Aaron"—onto it as an explanatory appositive; this is strange. Under this view, it is also permissible for "Aaron" to be the object of a suppressed verb or a substitute, and you have heard the discussion regarding that.

The apparent view is that "for me" can also be a connection to "appoint," just as it is permissible under some of the previous views for it to be a clarification. I have not seen a reason for the omission of this possibility there, nor the reason for the omission of the possibility of it being a connection to "appoint" here. From the speech of some, the permissibility of both possibilities here and there is understood. Likewise, it is also permissible for it to be a state (hal) from "helper," and perhaps that facilitates the matter of sentence formation as claimed, though there is debate in that.

"My brother" (akhi), according to the various views, is an explanatory appositive for the vizier. There is no harm in having multiple appositives for one thing, or for "Aaron." It is not a condition that the second be more famous, as some imagined, because the clarification is achieved by the sum, as established in al-Mutawwal and its marginalia. There is no need to claim that that which is annexed to a pronoun is more definite than a proper noun due to the disagreement regarding that—in addition to what is in al-Kashf, which is that "my brother" in this context is more famous than his proper name, because Moses (peace be upon him) is the known signifier, and the one addressed is described by the intimate conversation and honor, and the one through whom one becomes known is in reality the definite one. Furthermore, this clarification is not for His sake, exalted be He, for nothing is hidden from Him; rather, Moses (peace be upon him) bringing it forth follows the pattern of what preceded in His saying, "It is my staff," etc. It is also permitted that "my brother" be a subject (mubtada) whose predicate is...