| | “I HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN OF YOU THRICE”
MEGILAT ESTHER AND THE ETERNAL WAR WITH AMALEK
VI
DAVID AND AMALEK
During David’s ongoing flight from Sha’ul (I Sh’mu’el 19-30), he escaped to Gat, where the king, Akhish, granted him a city of his own, Ziklag. David fooled Akhish into believing that he had completely turned his back on his people and Akhish enlisted him to be his bodyguard in the upcoming battle against Yisra’el. David and his six hundred men proceeded, with Akhish, to join the rest of the P’lishti captains in readying for war. They protested his presence and voiced concern regarding the sincerity of David (how right they were! - by the way, the text gives us no hint of how David would have extricated himself from this situation on his own.)
David and his men returned home; the text then relates:
And it came to pass, when David and his men came to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had invaded the south, and Ziklag, and struck Ziklag, and burned it with fire; And had taken the women captives, who were there; they did not kill any, either great or small, but carried them away, and went on their way... But David pursued, he and four hundred men; for two hundred remained behind, who were so faint that they could not go over Nahal Besor. And they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David, and gave him bread, and he ate; and they made him drink water; And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs, and two clusters of raisins; and when he had eaten, his spirit came back to him; for he had not eaten bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights. And David said to him, To whom do you belong? and from where are you? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days ago I fell sick. We made a raid upon the Negev haK’reti, and upon the territory which belongs to Yehudah, and upon the Negev of Kalev; and we burned Ziklag with fire. (I Sh’mu’el 30:1-2,9-14)
In other words, Amalek raided the cities of two powerful and well-established nations who were otherwise occupied at war (with each other). The information provided by the Egyptian slave helps to expand our understanding of the Amaleki approach to war: Not only do they attack the defenseless and tired (in Sinai), but they also take advantage of another nation’s exposed flank during a “legitimate” war.
Have we exhausted the mastery of Amalek’s military “play-book”? Do we have a complete handle on all of the ways in which our perpetual enemy may attack?
A closer look at the passages in the Torah reveals that there may be one additional prong of their military strategy that we must learn if we are to maintain constant vigilance against their enmity.
VII
V’LO YAREH ELOKIM - WHO?
In the description presented in D’varim of the Amaleki attack of forty years earlier, the Torah confirms that ‘Am Yisra’el was faint and weary; as mentioned above, this phrase emphasizes Amalek’s strategy of preying on the weak and defenseless. This phrase is followed, after a full pause (Etnachta), with an apparent reference to Amalek’s lack of morality:
v’Lo Yare Elokim (and did not fear God).
There are commentators who understand that in spite of the full pause here, this last phrase also describes ‘Am Yisra’el. To wit: Amalek attacked you when you were tired as a result of your lack of fear of heaven. This approach is further strengthened by the juxtaposition of the war with B’nei Yisra’el’s complaint about being thirsty (in Sh’mot 17:1-7 - see Rashi at 17:8). In addition, the name Rephidim, where Amalek attacked, is (as a result of these two textual clues), exegetically rendered as a place where “they abandoned the Torah” - sheRaphu Y’deihem min haTorah.
If we follow this reading - and it is not adopted by all commentators (see below), then ‘Am Yisra’el played a quasi-active role in the attack of ‘Amalek. They created, by their own lack of allegiance and faith to God, a void which allowed Amalek to enter and attack. Thus, we have identified three components in ‘Amalek’s attack strategy:
1) Attacking a politically and militarily weak, disorganized people, taking advantage of their confusion and fear.
2) Attacking a politically and militarily strong people who are involved in another war, taking advantage of their preoccupation.
3) Attacking a spiritually weak and disengaged people, taking advantage of their faithlessness.
VIII
THE ETERNAL WAR WITH AMALEK
At the dedication of the altar after the victory over Amalek, Mosheh declared that Hashem will have war with Amalek from generation to generation Although this might be understood in the same framework as specific proscriptions and prescriptions regarding other neighboring nations (e.g. Ammon, Mo’av, Egypt, Edom, the seven nations of K’na’an etc.), a careful read of Rambam’s formulation of the Halakhah of commemorating - and eradicating the memory of - Amalek (MT M’lakhim 5:5) presents a different story.
The Halakhah maintains that all of the neighboring nations were intermarried and integrated during the great geopolitical upheavals which took place under the reign of Sanheriv. (Tosefta Yadayim 2:8) and are, therefore, only theoretical in nature.
Rambam rules accordingly (MT M’lakhim 5:4) regarding the Mitzvah of destroying the seven K’na’ani nations. After presenting the Halakhah, he states: uK’var Avad Zikh’ram - their memory is already lost.
In the following paragraph, Rambam codifies the Mitzvah to remember the enmity of Amalek and to eradicate their memory from the earth - and he omits the same caveat - as if to say, they can still be identified.
R. Mosheh haLevi Soloveitchik inferred from this lacuna that ‘Amalek is not purely a geneaological Halakhah (as with all other nations), rather an ideological one. Any nation or group that establishes the destruction of the Jewish people - just for the sake of destruction - as a goal, is to be considered Amalek, regardless of its lineage. (See Kol Dodi Dofek, p. 110 n. 23. This application must be considered tentative, as the implications of a complete identification of any contemporary group with Amalek has practical consequences that most Rabbinic authorities would quickly eschew.)
This is why God’s war is against Amalek l’Dor Dor - for generations. Any nation that attempts to destroy His people will be, in effect, declaring war on Hakadosh Barukh Hu.
We can now understand the association of Haman with Amalek. Even though it is hard to reconcile the connection from the perspective of lineage, Haman is a pure example of Amaleki thinking - attempting to wipe out ‘Am Yisra’el “just because we’re there”. (see Esther 3:6 and 5:13).
IX
RECONSTRUCTING THE DIALOGUE
BETWEEN ESTHER AND THE HAKHAMIM
When Esther asked the Hakhamim for commemoration l’Dorot (i.e. inclusion in the canon), she was evoking another statement of Haza”l:
only the prophecy which contained a lesson for future generations ( l’Dorot) was written down, and that which did not contain such a lesson was not written. (BT Megilah 14a)
In other words, Esther claimed that the lesson of her story was one needed for all generations. In every generation, Jews would need to be aware and on alert for enemies of Haman’s ilk.
The Sages responded that this message had already been communicated three times - and there was no room for a fourth. In other words, all three methods of attack adopted by our perpetual enemies - the ideological and spiritual descendants of Amalek – were already found in T’nakh and there was no need for another message.
What was the message which Esther wished to perpetuate?
In last year’s essay on Megilat Esther, I pointed out (citing Haza”l in several places) that the Jews in Persia during the period leading up to our story were intensely and deliberately assimilated into the general - even pagan - culture. This included their names (including Esther, associated with Istahar, the goddess of fertility, and Mordechai, a version of Mardukh, the god of creation – both members of the various panthea common throughout the Levant), their comportment (as the Gemara states in the name of R. Shim’on b. Yohai - the Jews deserved this decree because they participated in Ahashverosh’s feast) and even their clothing (note that no one knew that Mordechai was Jewish until he told them - Esther 3:6).
One of the messages of the Megilah - and the one most closely associated with the need to always remember Amalek - is that Amalek attacks us when we are comfortable, settled and secure - and disconnected from Torah. Our lack of a spiritual anchor allows Amalek to come along and attack - and nearly defeat us.
Thus, the message of Esther’s Megilah was similar to that found in Sefer D’varim - if, indeed, it was the B’nei Yisra’el who were Lo Yare Elokim (not fearing God). The Rabbis understood that the passage in Mishlei, discussing excellent things to which we ought to incline our ear and keep inside of us all direct us that our trust may be in Hashem may be a reference to the constant awareness we must maintain of the possibility of an Amalakean attack. For that reason, they understood that the word “excellent” may also refer to “three” - since there are only three circumstances during which we need to maintain our vigilance for this perpetual enemy.
Hence, they rejected Esther’s request on account of the superfluity of the message - it has already been communicated in Sefer D’varim...
...until they found the opinion of R. Elazar haModa’i, who understood that the first of the three commemorations alluded to in Sh’mot 17 referred to both Sh’mot and D’varim; i.e. both of them speak of only one type of Amaleki attack. Perforce, that must be the attack of the vulture-like people on a defenseless nation.
We now understand the dispute between R. Yehoshua and R. Elazar haModa’i. R. Yeshoshua understands that there were two aspects to the Amaleki attack in the desert - both the cowardly attack on the tired and weary, as well as the opportunity afforded by our lacking fear of God. Hence, he reads the first two commemorations commanded as Sh’mot and D’varim, since each carries a different component of Amalek’s attack strategy.
R. Elazar haModa’i, on the other hand, must reject this reading of Lo Yare Elokim, preferring to read the description as being about Amalek (empasized by the full pause between the description of our weariness and lack of moral restraint). Therefore, both the narrative in Sh’mot and the command in D’varim refer to one incident cut from one cloth - the attack by a group of nomads on a defenseless people recently liberated from servitude and presently wandering in the desert.
If that is the case, goes the argument, there is no message in T’nakh about Amalek’s proclivity for attacking us when we are spiritually disjointed. There is, therefore, a crying need for the inclusion of Megilat Esther l’Dorot, since it is a message needed l’Dorot.
X
POSTSCRIPT
The Mekhilta in Parashat B’shalach records the following two opinions:
R. Yehoshua...says...similarly, it is impossible for Yisra’el to exist unless engaged in the study of Torah; since they abandoned the study of Torah, therefore the enemy came upon them, since the enemy only attacks on account of sin and trespass, therefore it says: And Amalek came...
R. Yehoshua places the blame for the attack squarely on the shoulders of the B’nei Yisra’el.
R. Elazar haModa’i says: And Amalek came. Since Amalek was sneaking under the wings of the cloud [of glory] and kidnapping people of Yisra’el and killing them, as it says:
How he met you by the way... v’Lo Yare Elokim
R. Elazar haModa’i understands that the people who did not fear God were Amalek – thus leaving room in our T’nkah for one more message - Kitvuni l’Dorot.
| |
 |
| Mikra, Copyright © 2011 by Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom and Torah.org. The author is Educational Coordinator of the Jewish Studies Institute of the Yeshiva of Los Angeles. |
Questions or comments? Email feedback@torah.org.
Join the Jewish Learning Revolution! Torah.org: The Judaism Site brings this and a host of other classes to you every week. Visit http://torah.org or email learn@torah.org to get your own free copy of this mailing.
Permission is granted to redistribute, but please give proper attribution and copyright to the author and Torah.org. Both the author and Torah.org reserve certain rights. Email copyrights@torah.org for full information.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment