Parshat Tetzave - Shabbat Zachor

A perpetual burnt offering for your generations

 at the entrance to the tent of meeting before the lord,

Where i shall meet with you there to speak to you.

And i shall meet there with the israelites

 and it shall be consecrated through my glory

(Shemot 29:42-43)

There - In the place where rests the testimony of His Torah, there will God meet with us, there he awaits us. If we look forward to God's meeting with us, we must approach with a burnt offering, symbol of perpetual devotion to God and His Torah [...] All the actions of the consecration and the sanctification are but symbolic acts. The sanctity of the place itself does not prevail other than by God's causing his presence to rest there. Thus does God establish the works of man's hands and He stamps upon them the stamp of His pleasant approval.

(Rashar Hirsch, ibid. ibid.)

 

As little as I have ever understood the exact meaning of the expression "the opening up of the soul in its love of God," I ask myself, nonetheless, whether there isn't a certain connection between the establish-ment of working hours and the love of God, with or without the opening up of the soul. I am even inclined to believe that there are not many other ways to love God than to establish these working hours correctly, no way that is more urgent.

(Emanuel Levinas, quoted in Nine Talmudic Readings)

 

The eradication of amalek - an ethical challenge

Gili Zivan

"And it shall be, when the Lord your God grants you respite from all your enemies... you shall wipe out the remembrance of Amalek from under the heavens, you shall not forget" (Devarim 25:19). Every year, on the Shabbat preceding Purim we read this command. Even those who are not always meticulous in hearing the Torah readings, pay special attention on this Shabbat in order to perform the mitzvah.

How can this be? How can the same Torah which commanded: "Fathers shall not die because of the sons and sons shall not die for their fathers, each shall die for his own sin" (Devarim 24:17), that was so cautious with regard to "You shall not kill" that the Mishna determines that a Sanhedrin which effects an execution once in seventy years is branded a destructive tribunal (Makkoth 1, 10) - commands us to wipe out the remembrance of Amalek! We are troubled not only by the problems of suitability and consistency, but primarily by the ethical problem! How can we accept with equanimity this order of extermination while maintaining an ethical position which totally negates genocide?

The earliest formulation of this problems is found in the Babylonian Talmud, in the midrash [homilitical exposition] of the uncommon verb "vayarev" (And Shaul advanced as far as the city of Amalek and argued (vayarev) in the wadi" (I Shmuel 15:8) [Translator's note: The meaning of vayarev is unclear. The author of the midrash chose to read it as 'argued']

"And he argued in the wadi', said R. Mani: Regarding the law of the wadi. [Translator's note: The sacrifice of a heifer in a wadi was communal expiation for unsolved murder - See Devarim 21] When the Holy One, blessed be He, charged Shaul: 'Go and smite Amalek', he replied: If, in the case of a single killing, the Torah said to offer the heifer, certainly for all these souls all the more so!? If a human sinned, what was the sin of the beast? And if adults sinned, what was the sin of the minors?' A divine voice came forth and said to him 'Do not be overly righteous'. And when Shaul said to Doeg 'Go and strike the priests' a divine voice came forth and said 'do not be overly wicked' (Yoma 22b)

According to this midrash, Shaul turns to God seeking understanding of how He who commanded the heifer ritual, which so exalts the value of human life, can also order the destruction of a nation, including the non-guilty. What answer does the midrash in Yoma offer? A divine voice which does not give a straight answer, but refers us to a different incident involving Shaul; the slaughter of Nov, a city of priests. We recall how David, fleeing from Shaul, reaches Nob and requests bread and shelter. When Shaul is informed of this he orders Doeg the Edomite to wipe out the entire population of the town:

"And he put Nob, the town of the priests, Nob, to the sword, men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen, asses, and sheep - all to the sword" (I Shmuel 22:19). The linguistic similarity between the charge to destroy Amalek "Now go, attack Amalek, and proscribe all that belongs to him. Spare no one but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses" (Ibid 15:2-3), and the verse describing the destruction of Nob, is evidence, according to the midrash, of Shaul's unstable and unethical personality. The divine voice admonishes Shaul "You, who with such ease drew the sword and slaughtered all the habitants of Nob, town of priests, despite their innocence, dare to speak about pity for Amalek? 'Do not be overly righteous'!

The midrash in Yoma supplies a sharp answer to Shaul, but it does not provide a satisfactory answer to the moral problem which has troubled generations of Jews who have looked to the Bible for guidance.

Prof. Sagi published an extensive survey of commentary on the subject, analyzing the underlying trends of thought (See his article: "The Punishment of Amalek: Jewish Tradition Copes with the Ethical Problem", in Moutner, Sagi and Shamir (eds.), Multi-culturalism in the Jewish Democratic State, Tel Aviv 1998 pp. 477-510 [Heb]) In his footsteps, I wish to divide the commentary on the subject into two: realistic commentary - which claims that Amalek's totally unacceptable behavior justifies exceptional punishment; and allegoric-symbolic commentary, according to which 'Amalek' is not a real nation, but an idea, a metaphor for the evil powers in the world which must be fought.

To represent the realistic approach I have chosen Don Yitzchak Abarbanel (Portugal and Spain, 15th cent.) who enumerates, in his commentary to Devarim 25:17, four "war crimes" which sanction shedding Amalekite blood: The first: "They attacked for no reason", since Israel did not even enter their territory; The second crime of Amalek finds expression in the fact that they attacked without declaring war, unlike the practice of "the kings [...] who, before attacking another nation, notify their enemies of their approach and tell them to prepare their weapons"; The third crime is that "He [Amalek] waged war against the weak". The fourth crime of Amalek is related to his rebellion against the God of Israel: "'and not fearing God' [...] that Amalek sinned against the Blessed One and against Israel" (Abarbanel's Commentary on Devarim 25:17)

Many other exegites, however, considered explanations such as these to be inadequate, and suggested a different method of coping. They sought to see in Amalek an allegorical symbol of evil (cosmic, nationalistic or individual) which must be contested.

Sagi, in his above-mentioned article, quotes the commentary of R. Zvi Elimlech of Dinov, a Chassidic leader in early 18^th century Poland, which may provide a good example of the symbolic approach.

And since Amalek in is in the category of the evil inclination [...] we are therefore commanded to eradicate its memory through our behavior. And also, because today it is impossible to fulfill the mitzvah in actuality [...] we are charged not to let it be forgotten from our thoughts, but the primary component of remembrance is in the intelligence, and through this we shall overcome Amalek.¹

Since Amalek is no longer a real identifiable national entity (according to the Mishneh which claims that "Sanheriv, king of Assyria, has already risen and jumbled all the nations", Mishneh, Tractate Yadaim 4, 4; Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Prohibited Sexual Relations 22, 25) R' Elimelech of Dinov regards Amalek as an expression of the powers of evil in the world, and our task is to fight the memory of Amalek (the evil inclination) and to overcome him through the power of our thought.

Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsh, one of the leaders of the neo-Orthodoxy in 19th century Germany, takes a similar position:

If a constant war is waged by the Holy One, blessed be He, against Amalek, it cannot be but that this refers to that war of battles incumbent upon all human beings, that Israel was commanded with in a specific period [...] but there is no doubt that this is the unceasing war of divine justice, what is commonly termed the justice of history against Amalek, and not necessarily that particular Amalek and its biological descendents, but all those nations and kingdoms which continue the Amalekite legacy and are descendents of Amalek in their spirit or character.

Rashar Hirsch adds a most important note:

Forget not this, should the day come and you will desire to resemble Amalek and like him [...] seek opportunities through means small and great to exploit your superiority in order to hurt people [...] do not forget this thing, that when the day comes and you yourself will suffer from arrogance and the violence of Amalek. Watch over the humanitarianism and the values of justice which you learned from your Lord².

Everyone, even, - God forefend - the Jewish people can be infected with Amalekite attributes: "There will come a day" says Rashar Hirsch, "that you - the Jewish nation - will be powerful, and then in particular must be you careful not to be infected by that Amalekite-ism which is expressed through the exploitation of your strength in order to demean and to destroy those weaker than yourself".

R. Moshe Avigdor Amiel, Rabbi of Tel Aviv who did in 1946, and was a leader of the Mizrachi, saw in the war against Amalek the war of God against militarism:

God, blessed be He, does like wars in the world; on the contrary, "Shalom" is the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. One obligatory war did He decree and that is the war against Amalek, the war against wars in general [...]³.

Another variation on the symbolist approach has developed following the Shoah, and thus writes Avraham Kariv in his book:

Every blow against Israel from then until now is the work of Amalek. Because Amalek is not race but essence. [...] In our generation Amalek gathered strength for an intensified advance and the face of the world was transformed monstrously⁴.

In his introduction to the Haphtara of Parashat Zachor, R. Yissachar Yaakobson reads Amalek as every enemy who threatens the existence of the Jewish nation.

Kingdom in Israel is possible and desirable only in order to fulfill the word of the Lord [...] but there is no purpose to this kingdom [...] as long as there exists that nation which resisted in so insolent a manner the will of God and His kingdom. The existence of the kingdom in Israel, therefore, forcefully and unequivocally demands the destruction of God's enemy, Amalek.⁵

Let us note, if the goal of the symbolist approach was to shake off from the commandment its concrete content, the identification of Amalek with or that nation with the "Amalek of our generation" is liable to permit from anew the killing of individuals who did not sin, in the name of the eradication of the present day Amalek.

A personal direction suggests symbolic interpretation of a psychological hue. This commentary seeks evil neither in the real world nor in higher spheres; it points to the Amalek which exists in every one of us. The words of the command "Remember what Amalek did to you [singular]" is understood as an appeal to the individual. Thus the meaning of the command is completely changed: Amalek is neither this nor that entity in the world; it is found in every one of us. R. Yisrael of Kuzhnitz puts this claim in clear focus when he says: Amalek is the yetzer hara - the evil inclination - who oppresses every man."⁶

On a broadsheet which appeared nine years ago, on the eve of Shabbat "Zachor", the following was written:

As Jews we are commanded to erase the memory of Amalek, symbol of evil, and to combat wickedness, even that which resides within us.

For us: Amalekism is the evil inclination; Amalekism is baseless hatred; Amalekism is cruelty to the weak who live among us; Amalekism is the discrimination against the strangers and the aliens who dwell in our gates; Amalism is racism.

We began this article by presenting the moral difficulties raised by the command to eradicate Amalek, and we concluded with revolutionary commentary according to which the eradication of Amalek is the constant struggle against the evil which resides in us.

1. Elimelech Zvi of Dinov, Bnei Yissaschar (name and place not cited) essay for month of Adar, Essay 3, Drush 1, p. 103, according to Sagi, loc cit.

2. Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, Cycles of the Year, Part 2, Bnei Brak 5726, p. 189. According to Sagi.

3. Moshe Avigdor Amiel, Derashot El Ami, Part 3, Tel Aviv 5724, P.134. According to Sagi, op.cit.

4. Avraham Kariv, Seven Pillars of the Tenach, Tel Aviv [date not cited]. Pp. 224-227.

5. Rabbi Yissachar Yaakobson, Chazon Hamikra, Vol. II, Tel Aviv [date not cited] p. 199.

6. Rabbi Yisrael of Kozhnitz, Avodat Yisrael, Bnei Brak 5733, 22b. According to Sagi op. cit.

Dr. Gili Zivian is Co-director of the Yaakov Herzog Center.

 

 

The Indwelling of the Divine Presence Reflects Human Attitudes Towards God

One man used to say: When our love was strong, we could lie together on the edge of a sword; now that the love between us has weakened, a bed 60 cubits wide is insufficient for us. Rav Huna said: This idea is found in Scripture. In the beginning it is written, I will arrange My meetings with you there, and I will speak with you from atop the ark cover (Shemot 25), and we learned that the Ark was nine handbreadths, and the cover one handbreadth, making a total of ten, but [later] it is written, And the the house which king Solomon built for the Lord, the length thereof (was) sixty cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits (I Kings 6). And in the end it is written, So says the Lord, "The heavens are My throne, and the earth is My footstool; which is the house that you will build for Me, etc.? (Isaiah 66).

(Sanhedrin 7a)

 

But will God really dwell on earth? Even the heavens to their uttermost reaches cannot contain You, how much less this House that I have built. (I Kings 8:27)

When love between Israel and its Lord was strong, the Shekhina could contract itself and come into contact with Israel on the Ark's covering, in the area of two cubits. But when this love waned - "Even the heavens to their uttermost reaches cannot contain You, how much less this House."

The closeness of God and Man is dependent upon the degree of love that Man has for God, as in the spirit of the verse in the "Shema", the key verse of the faith: "And you shall love the Lord your God". then can the Shekhina contract itself into the area of human reality. But if not - the world and all that is therein is too small to contain the Shekhina.

(From Y. Leibowitz: "Remarks on the Weekly Parasha", p, 59)

"Now Amalek Came... did not stand in awe of God"

Only Amalek was not afraid; "did not stand in awe of God". He alone inherited the character of that nation which chose as its inheritance the sword and which seeks glory in the blood-soaked laurel wreathes, the nation which strives to realize the motto "we will make for ourselves a name." (Bereishit 11:4) with which the aged Nimrod begins the history of the world. And how is this to be achieved? By destroying international peace and human happiness. (Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on Shemot 17, 8)

 

 

The Multiple Faces of "The Holy Spirit"

It is taught in a berayta, R. Eliezer says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy sprit, as it says, and Haman said in his heart.

R. Akiva says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy sprit, as it says, And Esther obtained favor in the eyes of all that looked upon her.

R. Meir says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy sprit, as it says And the things became known to Mordecai.

R. Jose b. Durmaskith said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy sprit, as it says, But on the spoil they laid not their hands.

Said Shmuel: Had I been there, I would given a proof superior to all, namely, that it says, They confirmed and took upon them, [which means] they confirmed above what they took upon themselves below.

(Megillah 7a)

 

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

4,500 copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. 

Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.

Shabbat Shalom is available on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il

For responses and arranging to write for Shabbat Shalom: pleiser@netvision.net.il