Amalek
PARASHAT
HASHAVUA
*********************************************************
This parasha series
is dedicated le-zekher nishmat
HaRabanit Chana bat HaRav Yehuda Zelig zt"l.
*********************************************************
This
parasha series is dedicated in
honor of
Rabbi Menachem Leibtag and Rabbi Elchanan
Samet.
*********************************************************
Amalek
By Rav Elchanan
Samet
A.
STRUCTURE OF PARASHAT AMALEK
(25:17) "Remember what Amalek did to
you on the way when you came out of Egypt,
(18) That he met you on the way and
attacked your rear - all the weak ones trailing behind - when you were weary and
faint, and did not fear God.
(19) And it shall be, when the Lord
your God gives you rest from all your enemies around in the land that the Lord
your God gives you as an inheritance, to possess it, you shall wipe out the
memory of Amalek from beneath the heavens; you shall not
forget."
The parasha is clearly divided into two halves that are equal in length,
with an obviously chiastic relationship between them. This structure hints at
the great significance of the parasha - a significance that is not immediately
apparent upon an initial reading.
On the basis of its overt content, the parasha is divided into two
parts:
A.
verses 17-18 - describing Amalek's
action (which must be remembered);
B.
verse 19 - the mitzva commanding
Israel to pay back Amalek in the future for that action.
The transition from the description of
Amalek's act to the command concerning Israel's response is indicated by the
expression, "And it shall be" (ve-haya), with which verse 19
begins.
The two halves are really equal, although there are two verses on one
side and one on the other. In such a small literary unit, the number of verses
cannot serve as a reliable quantitative indicator, and to complete the picture
we need to count words. Lo and behold, verses 17-18 together contain 23 words,
while verse 19 contains 24 - an almost-exact match.
The chiastic framework of this parasha is apparent at first glance, for
it concludes with an echo of its introduction: "Remember
you shall not forget."
Indeed, the midrash halakha and the codifiers of the mitzvot who follow its lead
recognize the connection between the introduction and the conclusion. "You shall
not forget" the same thing that you must "remember;" both commandments refer to
"what Amalek did to you." The Sifri therefore teaches, "'Remember' - verbally;
'do not forget' - in your heart." The midrash halakha distinguishes between the
two commands as regards the MANNER in which they are to be fulfilled, but
considers both to apply to the same content.
If not for the literary connection between the beginning of the parasha
and its end, one may have understood "You shall not forget" as referring to what
precedes it: "You shall wipe out the memory of Amalek." In other words, one might assume that we
should "not forget" to fulfill this mitzva of wiping out Amalek. However, the literary parallel and
structure indicates that "You shall not forget" refers to the same thing as
"remember."
Let us now examine the parallels between the description of Amalek's act
and the command to pay them back for it. What were the circumstances of time and
place in which Amalek acted? This we are told in the parasha twice: Amalek's
attack was (17-18) "ON THE WAY when you were coming out of Egypt, when they met
you ON THE WAY." However, retribution will be carried out (19) "IN THE LAND that
the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, to possess it." Only when the
process of the exodus reaches its conclusion will the time for retribution
come.
The text is clearly contrasting Israel's situation when Amalek came to
attack (wandering in the desert, shortly after leaving Egypt) and their
situation when they will exact their revenge (dwelling in the land promised and
given to them by God).
This contrast continues. Israel's situation at the time of Amalek's
attack was:
(18) "
when you were TIRED AND FAINT,
and did not fear God."
The time for
retribution will come when Israel's condition will be exactly the
opposite:
(19) "When the Lord your God GIVES YOU
REST."
Weariness and rest, or faintness and
rest, are common opposites in Tanakh and in reality:
(Yishayahu 28:12) "This is THE REST,
let THE WEARY
"
(Yirmiyahu 45:3) "I
AM WEARY of sighing; I have found no REST."
The contrast between these two states of Israel is a dual contrast: the
weariness of Israel on the way at that time seems to be related to "not fearing
God," but when the nation dwells at rest in its land, they will be aware that
this rest is God's gift to them: "When GOD YOUR GOD GIVES YOU
rest."
The final contrast between the two halves involves the act that Amalek
committed and the retribution that Israel is commanded to carry out. Concerning
Amalek, we are told:
(18) "
he attacked
your rear, all the weak ones trailing behind."
Although the attack was a partial one,
it was directed specifically at the weakest travelers, whom Amalek attacked from
the rear. Israel, in contrast, is commanded to wage an all-out war against
Amalek: (19) "You shall wipe out the memory of Amalek from beneath the heavens."
An attack on their weaklings, who represent a convenient target, is not
sufficient.
Let us now highlight the structure of the two halves with their
parallels, presenting the parasha as a whole:
I
1. (17) "REMEMBER what Amalek did to you
2. ON THE WAY WHEN YOU CAME OUT OF
EGYPT, (18) That he met you ON THE WAY
3. and attacked your rear - all the
weak ones trailing behind
4. when you were WEARY AND FAINT, and
did not fear God.
II
4a. (19) And it shall be, WHEN THE LORD YOUR GOD GIVES YOU REST from all
your enemies around
2a. IN THE LAND THAT THE LORD YOUR GOD
GIVES YOU AS AN INHERITANCE, TO POSSESS IT,
3a. you shall wipe out the memory of
Amalek from beneath the heavens,
1a. YOU SHALL NOT
FORGET."
A fundamental difference between the two halves is now highlighted. In
the first half there is no mention of God's Name (other than the negative, "
did
NOT fear God"). Israel's situation on the way, at the time of Amalek's attack,
expresses distance from God and a hiding of God's face from them. This is
apparently the reason for their weariness and faintness, and for the weaklings
to be trailing behind. Their physical weakness reflects a spiritual failing,
rooted in the concluding words of this half: "
and did not fear God." In the
second half, by contrast, "the Lord your God" is mentioned twice, and He is
bestowing good on Israel. He GIVES REST to them from all their enemies around,
and it is He who GAVE them the land as an inheritance to possess
it.
B. WHO "DID NOT FEAR
GOD" - AMALEK OR ISRAEL?
In the previous section we assumed
that the subject of the expression, "and did not fear God," was Israel, and that
these words describe their religious-spiritual situation at the time of Amalek's
attack. This assumption requires some clarification.
The accepted interpretation by the earliest commentators - Rashi and Ibn
Ezra - and those that follow their example, is different:
Rashi: "'And did not
fear' - [this refers to] Amalek. 'God' - from doing evil to
you."
Ibn Ezra: "'And did not fear' - this
refers to Amalek; it is a past-tense verb."
The traditional cantillation of the
verse also supports this interpretation.
The reasoning behind this interpretation requires a certain linguistic
background. The expression, "did not fear" (lo yarei) includes a verb that is
preceded by a negative. But the negative word here - 'lo' - is usually used in
Tanakh only with reference to past or future tense verbs. In the present tense,
it is more common for the negative 'ein' to be used.
The word 'yarei' (fear) itself may be interpreted in two different ways:
as a verb in the second-person singular in the present tense, or as a verb in
the third person singular in the past tense. In the previous section we treated
the word "yarei" in our parasha in accordance with the first possibility: as
referring to the present tense, describing in the second person (in the same way
that the Torah addresses Israel throughout the parasha) Israel's situation at
the time of Amalek's attack.
But this interpretation involves a difficulty. If the verb here is indeed
meant in the present tense, it should be negated by the word "ein," such that
the phrase would read: "
when you were weary and faint AND DID NOT FEAR
(ve-einkha yarei) God." Rashi and Ibn Ezra avoid this difficulty, since
according to their explanation, the word "yarei" (fear) refers to Amalek, and is
therefore meant in the past tense (like all the other verbs in this parasha that
refer to Amalek). Accordingly, it is negated by the word
"lo."
This, then, is the decisive consideration underlying the cantillation of
these verses as well as the interpretations of Rashi, Ibn Ezra and other
commentators who follow their lead.
Nevertheless, already in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Yishmael (Beshalach,
Masekhta de-Amalek, parasha 1) we find an interpretation according to which the
subject of the sentence is Israel:
"'And Amalek came'
Because [Israel]
strayed from the words of Torah, therefore the enemy came upon
them
Others say: 'and did not fear God' -
THIS REFERS TO ISRAEL, who had no mitzvot to their
credit."
Among the early commentators, we find that Chizkuni adopts the Mekhilta's
interpretation. How does this interpretation answer the linguistic problem,
i.e., the negation of a present-tense verb by means of the word
"lo"?
Consultation with the Concordance reveals that in fifteen instances in
Tanakh, a verb in the present tense is negated with the word "lo." The following
are a few examples:
(Bemidbar 35:23) "He IS NOT AN ENEMY
(lo oyev) to him AND DOES NOT SEEK (ve-lo mevakesh) his
harm"
(Devarim 4:42 and 19:4) "He HAS NOT
HATED (lo sonei) him"
(Yirmiyahu 2:2) "Your walking after Me
in the wilderness, in a land THAT IS NOT SOWN (lo zeru'a)"
(Tehillim 38:15) "I was like a man WHO
DOES NOT HEAR (lo shome'a), with no rebuke in his mouth."
Admittedly, the negation in present tense by means of the word "ein" is
much more prevalent - occurring some hundred and fifty times - and is certainly
the general rule. But fifteen occurrences cannot simply be dismissed, and
therefore we may add to them our verse - "ve-lo yarei," in the sense of, "And
you were not fearing
."
The interpretation of the Mekhilta and Chizkuni is plausible, then, from
the linguistic perspective. There are two reasons why this interpretation should
be preferable to the more commonly accepted one.
FIRSTLY, this interpretation fits better with the structure of the
parasha and the parallel between its two halves, as demonstrated in the previous
section. The description of Israel as "not fearing God" joins the other
descriptions of the first half, all of which point to a negative state of
affairs: "trailing behind," "weary," "faint." In the final description - "did
not fear God" - the source of this negative state becomes clear. This
description, then, joins the words, "when you were weary and faint," to form a
single continuum (as Chizkuni suggests). The phrase in the second half, "when
the Lord your God gives you rest," not only contrasts rest with weariness, but
also recognizes the fact that this rest comes from God - the very opposite of
"not fearing God."
SECONDLY, the description of ISRAEL as not fearing God is remarkably
reminiscent of the description of what happened at Refidim, just prior to the
war against Amalek. Refidim was one of the first stops "on the way, when you
came out of Egypt." Upon arrival, it became clear that "there was no water for
the nation to drink." The description of the nation in our parasha as being
"weary" therefore matches what we read there - "and the nation was thirsty for
water," for in several places in Tanakh "weary" (ayef) connotes thirst (or
hunger).
At Refidim, the nation quarreled with Moshe and tested God. The
definition of their sin there is given in the final verse of the story,
explaining the name given to the place:
(17:7) "And he called
the name of the place Masa u-Meriva, because of the quarrel (riv) of Bnei
Yisrael, and their testing (nasotam) of God, saying, 'IS GOD IN OUR MIDST OR
NOT?'"
In my shiur on parashat Beshalach, I noted the connection between the sin
of Israel at REFIDIM and the nature of the war against Amalek at the same place.
The war against Amalek was one in which Moshe's hands were weak (RAFU yadav),
and for that reason at certain moments Israel was stronger while at other
moments Amalek would prevail.
In the mitzva of wiping out Amalek, in our parasha, the perspective is
different from that of Sefer Shemot. There, the subject under discussion was
Israel's sin at Refidim and their punishment in the battle against Amalek. In
the description of the same event in our parasha, the subject is AMALEK'S GRAVE
SIN in attacking Israel at their moment of weakness and danger, thereby
endangering the continuation of their journey from Egypt to
Canaan.
From the story in Sefer Shemot, we learn that in Refidim Israel were not
only "weary and faint," but also - and more importantly they were in a
religious decline: they tested God, saying, "Is God in our midst, or not?" Where
do we learn of their debilitated spiritual condition in our parasha? We must
conclude that it appears in the words DESCRIBING ISRAEL at the time of Amalek's
attack on them at their difficult moment - "and did not fear
God."
C. SIGNIFICANCE OF
THE STRUCTURE AND OF THE POSTPONEMENT OF FULFILLMENT OF THE
MITZVA
Why does the Torah postpone the
fulfillment of wiping out Amelek to a time when Israel will be dwelling at rest
in the land? Aside from the simple reason, hinted at in the words of Ibn Ezra,
the full answer arises from a study of the structure of the
parasha.
The structure reveals that the two components of the postponement - (a)
"When the Lord your God gives you rest
" and (b) "in the land that the Lord your
God gives you
" - are essential elements in the chiastic, contrasting parallel
between the two halves of the parasha. The first component - "when the Lord your
God GIVES YOU REST" - is a contrast to "when you were WEARY AND FAINT
," while
the second - "IN THE LAND" - corresponds inversely to the description of Israel
being "ON THE WAY, when you came out of Egypt."
How does this answer our question as to the reason for the Torah
postponing the annihilation of Amalek for such a distant time?
In my shiur on parashat Beshalach, I posed a question on the opening
verse of the story of the war. (17:8) "And Amalek came and waged war against
Israel in Refidim" - FROM WHERE did Amalek come, and WHAT WAS THEIR MOTIVATION
in coming to fight? Neither that story nor the mitzva under discussion here give
explicit answers to these questions, but their clarification is most important
for an understanding of this unique narrative, as well as for an understanding
of our parasha. In particular, this clarification will help us understand the
very severe punishment destined for Amalek, discussed both in the final section
of that story (17:14-16) and in our parasha.
Avraham Kariv z"l (in his book Shivat Amudei Ha-Tanakh) discusses the
severity of the punishment:
"In all of Tanakh we
do not find a degree of Divine indignation like that expressed against Amalek;
nowhere is there anger like this. We must obviously ask: In what way was
Amalek's sin so much greater than that of all of Israel's enemies throughout the
generations? Admittedly, Amalek came upon those who left Egypt and attacked them
by surprise, without their having made any provisions for war, as we understand
from the language of the text in Sefer Shemot
and as written explicitly in the
extensive addition to the story in Sefer Devarim
But even this lowly war
cannot help us in any way to understand the severity of the punishment set down
for him."
As I noted in parashat Beshalach, the key to the question of WHERE Amalek
came from is to be found in the story of the spies, in parashat Shelach
(Bemidbar 13:29): "AMALEK DWELLS IN THE SOUTH OF THE LAND." Amalek's name crops
up several times in that story, and it is therefore clear that at that time,
Amalek dwelled at the southern border of Canaan, in the Negev, and served as the
first and most difficult obstacle in Israel's path. The attempted entry of the
"ma'apilim" into the land via the southern border was forcefully repelled by
Amalek and the Canaanites who dwelled in the Negev
mountains.
The knowledge of where Amalek came from only sharpens our question
concerning their motives. In order to reach Refidim, Amalek had to cross wide
expanses of the Sinai peninsula; why would they do this? To answer this
question, I quoted in parashat Beshalach the likely explanation proposed by
Cassuto in his commentary on Sefer Shemot:
"It is written here,
'And Amalek came' this indicates that [the Refidim area] was not their
dwelling place; they came from afar. Because they dwelled at the entrance to
Canaan on the southern side, AND SINCE THEY HAD CERTAINLY HEARD THAT ISRAEL WERE
HEADED THAT WAY, THEY SOUGHT TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM BEFORE IT AROSE, AND
SENT A BATTALION TO ATTACK ISRAEL AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR
JOURNEY."
The war waged by Amalek is therefore a pre-emptive one, meant to cut off
the continuation of Israel's path through the wilderness on the way to Eretz
Yisrael. Thus Amalek made themselves God's sworn enemy.
Throughout the generations, commentators and philosophers have tried to
explain the Torah's attitude towards Amalek and how the latter became God's
eternal enemy. Amalek's act, and even their essence, have been explained in
categories that ignore their significance as a historical nation. According to
the explanation quoted above, the Torah's attitude to Amalek focuses
specifically on the one-time historical aspect that is related to Amalek's
appearance before Israel.
The period of the Exodus in its wider sense, including the giving of the
Torah and the wandering in the desert until the entry into the land, was the
period of establishment and molding of Israel as God's nation. In this period,
God fulfilled the covenant that He made with the forefathers, and made a
covenant with their descendants, the entire nation. This period represents the
cornerstone of all of Tanakh, and is perceived in Tanakh as the basis for the
rest of the history of Am Yisrael and of humanity in general. During this
period, God realized His primal plan to establish from the seed of the
forefathers - whom God loved and chose from among all of humanity - a kingdom of
priests and a holy nation, who would stand at the center of human history. This
was not a plan that involved only one small nation, but rather a plan for all of
humanity and for all of history, until the end of days.
This primal and inaugural nature of the period of the Exodus (in the
broadest sense) turns its events into the basis for many mitzvot in the Torah.
In a certain sense, we may say that the basis for ALL the mitzvot of the Torah
lies in the events of that period. But we refer here to those mitzvot that were
determined for all generations because of SPECIFIC events that took place then.
More than 60 mitzvot out of the 613 are directly related to the Exodus. About
half of these involve the Pesach sacrifice and the seven days of the Festival of
Matzot, while the other half includes other mitzvot, the reason for all of which
is given as being "in memory of the Exodus from Egypt."
It is not only the actual EVENTS of the Exodus that serve as the basis
for many mitzvot of the Torah. Israel's JOURNEY from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael -
the period of the wilderness - also serves as the background for no small number
of mitzvot. The wandering in the desert was a primal experience in its own
right, one whose impressions molded the character of Israel and their mitzvot
for all generations. Some of the mitzvot based on "the way" are meant to remind
Israel of God's mercies towards them during the journey. Thus, for example, the
mitzva of dwelling in a sukka:
(Vayikra 23:42-43)
"In sukkot you shall dwell for seven days
in order that your generations will
know that I made Bnei Yisrael dwell in sukkot when I took them out of the land
of Egypt."
Other mitzvot based on "the way" are meant to eternalize in the national
memory the lessons of those primary events and
experiences:
(Devarim 4:9-10)
"
Lest you forget the things that your eyes have seen
and you shall transmit
them to your children and your children's children; the day that you stood
before the Lord your God at Chorev
"
(6:16) "You shall not test the Lord
your God as you tested Him at Massa
"
(24:8-9) "Guard yourselves concerning
the plague of tzara'at
Remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam ON THE
WAY, WHEN YOU CAME OUT OF EYGPT."
Some mitzvot related to the events of "the way" are meant to shape
Israel's attitude towards the surrounding nations. The general rule is that the
attitude of the nations towards Israel, wandering in the desert, determines the
future; it determines FOR ALL GENERATIONS what Israel's attitude will be towards
them, as reflected in the mitzvot. For this "way" was a test, to distinguish
between those nations whose opposition to Israel made them into God's enemies,
and other nations. In parashat Ki-Tetze (23:4-9), we find a series of mitzvot
regulating Israel's attitude towards the four nations involved in the events of
the Exodus and the wandering on the way. The four nations are arranged in the
text in inverse chronological order, from the last that Israel encountered to
the first:
1-2 (4) "An AMMONI and
MOAVI shall not enter God's congregation, even the tenth generation shall not
come into God's congregation, forever.
(5) Because they did not meet you with
bread and water ON THE WAY WHEN YOU CAME OUT OF EGYPT, and because they hired
Bil'am, son of Be'or, against you
to curse you
(7) You shall not seek their welfare
and their good all of your days, forever.
3-4 (8) You shall not
despite an EDOMI, for he is your brother; you shall not despise A MITZRI
(Egyptian), for you were strangers in his land.
(9) Children that will be born to them
- the third generation - may enter God's congregation."
As a continuation of this series of
mitzvot, we find - at the end of parashat Ki-Tetze - the parasha of
Amalek.
What is the difference between Ammon and Moav's treatment of Israel "on
the way when you came out of Egypt," and Amalek's treatment of them when they
were on the same journey? The accusation against Ammon and Moav is that ALTHOUGH
Israel was "on the way," they did not treat them as people on a journey should
be treated, in that they did not offer them bread and water. The accusation
against Amalek, on the other hand, is that it was SPECIFICALLY because Israel
was "on the way" with all its difficulties - "when you were weary and faint" -
that they attempted to exploit this situation and to achieve a quick victory
against them, thereby cutting short all at once the great Divine process of
bringing Israel out of Egypt and to Eretz Yisrael, at its weakest point. By
means of this act Amalek made themselves into an eternal enemy of God and of His
nation, Israel, for the war against Israel was in fact an attempt to frustrate
God's plan.
Let us now return to the question of the postponement of Amalek's
annihilation until the stage of "when the Lord your God gives you rest from all
your enemies around, in the land that the Lord your God gives you as an
inheritance, to possess it." THIS POSTPONEMENT IS INTEGRAL TO THE TORAH'S
ATTITUDE TOWARDS THAT BATTLE, and itself contains the great victory against
Amalek. The nation that attempted to confound the Divine plan of Israel's entry
into the land, by exploiting their weariness and faintness "on the way,"
suffering a spiritual crisis and the hiding of God's face because they "did not
fear God" ("Is God in our midst or not?") - this very nation will serve as proof
to all that the Divine plan has been realized in full.
How has the Divine plan been realized?
Israel overcame the difficulties of "the way" and completed their journey -
despite its length; they entered the land that God gave them and possessed it,
even meriting rest from all their enemies. THE EXODUS FROM EGYPT WILL HAVE
ACHIEVED ITS END AND ITS PURPOSE, and the attempt to curtail it in the middle
will be proven to have failed. Amalek's scheme of exploiting Israel's weakness
"on the way, when you came out of Egypt" was therefore defeated not only in
Yehoshua's local battle, which "weakened Amalek by the sword," but principally
in the huge historical change that occurs in Israel's situation. They grow from
a wandering nation that was "weary and faint, and did not fear God," into a
nation that merited to possess the land given to it by God, and to dwell therein
at rest.
This, then, is the meaning of the contrasting parallel between the two
halves of parashat Amalek. It hints at the severity of Amalek's scheme and at
what it was that the war was supposed to achieve. It hints at the enormity of
Amalek's defeat in the face of the complete realization of the Divine plan
concerning Israel. It is only when the victory of the Divine plan for Israel is
made clear, that Israel is required to settle their account with those who had
pitted themselves against that process.
(Translated by Kaeren
Fish.
The unabridged Hebrew version of this
shiur is archived at:
http://www.vbm-torah.org/hparsha-7/hparsha7.htm.)