שבת זכור - Shabbat of Remembrance, Amalek, and Why it’s Not What You Think
This week is Parshat V’yikra, the first section of Leviticus. It is also Shabbat Zakhor, the Shabbat of Remembrance, one of the four special Shabbatot before Pesach. As the name implies, the theme is remembrance, and specifically, we are to remember the crimes of Amalek against the Israelites as they journeyed in the desert. The special maftir recalls the command:
Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey after you left Mitzrayim. How he surprised you on the march, and cut down all the weak ones who were behind. When you were famished and weary and were not God fearing. Therefore, when Adonai your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you; in the land that your God is giving you as a hereditary portion. You shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under the Heaven. Do not forget! Deuteronomy 25:17-19
When I was younger this text never bothered me a whole lot. I placated any sort of concern over the open-ended command to wipe out an entire people by nodding to the idea that “they deserved it, look what they did to us!” I had little trouble with this collective guilt because (1) the command comes from G-d (per the story), and (2) turnabout is fair play. There is very little nuance in this view and I was happy with that.
Now that I have my own children though, I think differently. Being a fallible human, I quite often live up to less than the potential of my neshamah. I act, with some regularity, in ways that reflect neither the ideals of Jewish teachings or the examples lived by our prophets and sages. I screw up. As you can probably imagine I have trouble thinking about my children being held responsible for the dumb and/or sinful things I do. So the thought of carrying out genocide against Amalek, whether ordered by G-d or anyone else, is hard for me to come to terms with. This is especially true given that none of the folks who actually committed the atrocities against the Israelites were alive a generation later. Punishing the children for the sins of the fathers might be G-d’s prerogative (although I don’t believe this either…), but it certainly isn’t mine.
I am therefore thankful to Rabbi Shawn Zevitt of the Reconstructionist movement for his teaching based on the Itturei Torah, a classical Hasidic commentary. First, the Itturei Torah says:
Had the children of Israel not forgotten abut the slower ones in back but instead, brought them closer under the protecting wings of God’s Presence, binding the slower to all of Israel, the Amalekites would not have succeeded in their attack. But because you allowed the slower ones to be aharekha (meaning both “behind you” and “other”), that you separated them off from you and made them “other”, and you forgot about your brothers and sisters, Amalek could viciously attack them. Therefore, the Torah tells us to remember Amalek, so that we never forget to bring our brothers and sisters who need special attention into our midst.
Rabbi Zevitt points out that this text from the Torah, though problematic to progressive Jewish sensibilities, cannot be ignored in our study. And this is fortunate, because commentaries such as the one above demonstrate that often what we think is pointed at others (non-Jews in particular), is often pointed directly at us. The commentary indicates that there is no “us” and “them,” at least not that bears out placing all of the blame on one and none on the other. What if Israel had slowed to care for the stragglers instead of letting them fall behind? Do the great great great grandchildren of those Amalekites deserve to die because their great great great grandfathers took advantage of an opportunity presented by Israel’s disregard for its weakest? Often when we are enraged about a destructive action taken against us it is easy to focus solely on that action and not how we opened up a vulnerable spot to invite it in the first place. This is not blaming the victim, it is just being practical. If Israel had slowed, and Amalek had to confront the full might of Yehoshua bin Nun and his army, perhaps the story would have been markedly different. This fact does not excuse Amalek’s actions, but it must defray at least part of the responsibility for them.
I think the Itturei Torah is suggesting in a broader sense that we need to remember when we are mistreated, but not just remember what they did to us, but also how we may have been complicit by creating conditions which made us vulnerable. This is an important lesson to consider I think. How many times in our lives do we remind ourselves - and others - of how one or another person has offended or wronged us, while at the same time failing to remember how we may have invited such treatment? It is easier to get excited about holding others to account than it is to check ourselves, but I think an important message of שבת זכור is that one without the other is not adequate to considering the full range of steps that could have resulted in different outcomes.
Shabbat Shalom!
Yair
Wonderful interpretation — we are always complicit in the weaknesses of our kehilah. And whenever we indulge in assessing blame, we’re likely also making the community more vulnerable.
Shabbat Shalom!
Thanks David! As I said, I have to give a nod to Rabbi Zevitt, but I appreciate your comments. It’s interesting how often black and white thinking is the norm, and suggestions like the one made in the post are frowned upon. It sort of brings to mind Gandhi’s statement about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaving the whole world blind and toothless.
Shabbat shalom u’mevorakh,
Yair
Okay, Yair and David, I’m going to take another side of this issue.
Let me start by saying that I am grateful to Judaism for having an interpretive tradition and for the many, sometimes contradictory, lessons we are able to extract from the same text.
Where I would agree with Rabbi Zevitt (and you two) is in looking at ourselves for some of the responsibility of what happened with Amalek. Jews have a tendency to look inward when tragedy befalls us. I think this can be a good thing, since it shows a willingness to take responsibility for our own mistakes, and a desire to improve ourselves. Since Amalek is our cousin (the grandson of Esau), in some sense the evil is not totally foreign, but comes from the same source as we.
However, while I think Rabbi Zevitt’s reading of the text is a valid interpretation, I find it irritating and very 21st century. Anyone who has been on a large group hike knows that the faster ones tend to move toward the front of the group and the slower ones drift toward the back. Unless you’re expecting an attack, there is no urgency to stay as a tight group, and I would venture to say that the Israelites were not expecting an attack like this. It doesn’t have anything to do with disregard or lack of caring; it’s just where people tend to gravitate. His comment about "the protecting wings of God’s Presence" is unclear; was God protecting everyone, or only those in front? Was God’s presence supposed to protect them from Amalek, or was this the army’s job? I don’t think the text says anything about that. And while it’s very common, I HATE when people excuse aggressors and predatory murderers for their violence (as a HaAretz journalist blamed the ideology of Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav for the slaughter of 8 boys a couple of weeks ago). As a women’s self defense instructor, I have no love for excusing violent offenders.
In studying the parashah and the haftarah on Shabbat, my teacher addressed the brutality of the parashah—both ours and Amalek’s. In the context of the pshat (the surface meaning of the text), word had spread throughout the near Middle East of the miraculous events of the plagues, the exodus from Egypt, and the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai. People far and near heard about God’s power, His wondrous acts to free a people from slavery in Egypt (no mean feat), and His ushering His chosen people across the desert. To disregard God’s power and slaughter innocents for no reason at all was a colossal desecration and act of chutzpah. And the predatory nature of the act—not challenging Joshua’s army, but going for the civilians (sound familiar, 21st century readers?)—was inexcusable. This is what makes Amalek the metaphorical personification of evil in the Torah.
The Amalek story for us today is just that: a story. We have no idea who Amalek is anymore, and Amalek is not represented by any one people in our world today. The metaphorical message (which I think is the only way to understand this story) is the need to stamp out evil wherever we find it, within us and without, and not to make excuses or have mercy if doing that will allow evil to spread. This is not like the "shfoch" paragraph at the end of the Passover seder, which calls on Hashem to pour out His wrath on the nations that have persecuted the Jews. This is a commandment from God—one of the 613. Hashem commanded us, and it is up to US to carry it out. As such, I don’t think it represents a psychological need for revenge, like "shfoch" does.
It is revolting to think of killing babies. Genocide is something with which Jews have no lack of familiarity. Yet when you think about it, to allow Amalekite babies to live is to allow the next generation of "evil" to grow up, embittered by the story of what happened to their fathers and mothers and thirsting for revenge. (And who could blame them?) Shaul in the haftarah does what many of us would probably do—he takes pity on Agag and stops short of killing him; and thus, evil is allowed to endure. And because he had mercy on Agag, Agag’s wife was able to sneak into Agag’s tent, have sex with her husband, and sneak out, carrying with her Agag’s (and Amalek’s) future progeny.
At the end of the day, I think the Amalek story (and commandment) is a negative phrasing of the similar commandment, Tzedek, tzedek tirdof (Justice, justice you shall pursue).
Whew! Thanks for listening, and thanks for the very thought-provoking post, Yair.
Hey Shimshonit,
As always, you’ve provided a very well thought and instructive commentary. Thank you. I think that all of these views on the text are complimentary, and that none of them are "right" or "wrong," but they provide a wonderful kaleidescope of perspectives taken together.
Just a couple of things:
The commentary posted was from Itturei Torah. Rabbi Zevitt just applied it to modern life, but Hasidic masters are the authors of the suggestion that part of the blame for Amalek’s crime fell on Israel.
I think where the problem comes is in taking one or the other polarizing view in assigning blame in situations where (1) blame isn’t terribly useful, and (2) the primary concern should be avoiding the situation in the future. Let’s take American foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran, for example. The actions of Hezbollah are criminal, and that organization is rightly branded a terrorist gang. And yet, if the United States (1) hadn’t overthrown the democratically-elected and secular Muhammad Mossadegh in 1953 in Operation Ajax, and (2) hadn’t then installed Reza Shah Pahlevi, arguably one of the most corrupt leaders in the 20th century, and then (3) assisted Pahlevi in suppressing his people, the Islamic Revolution never would have happened, and Hezbollah in all likelihood would never have been founded. This does not excuse the actions of Hezbollah in the slightest, but it does point out that if the United States had acted ethically in the first place, it is entirely possible Hezbollah never would have come in to existence. So as a result, Ahmadinajad would be a clown in some circus instead of being a clown leading a nation attempting to produce nuclear weapons under the watchful eye of religious zealots who know more about the stories of the life of Imam Hussein than they do about modern science and philosophy. Imagine the difference better American choices could have made!
Point being that people often ignore the role they have played in creating their own adverse circumstances, and the Itturei Torah simply encourages us to consider the possibility that we can often take a role in mitigating future disasters by acting ethically today.
And for the record, there is in my view no justification whatsoever for what happened to the children and couple of adults at Yeshivat Merkaz HaRav. None. May the names of the attacker and those who helped him be blotted out. I hope that my original post was not suggesting that anything other than this was my thought.
Again, thanks for your words of Torah!
Yair
Hi, Yair.
I have given your comments some thought. I appreciate your example of American foreign policy and the rise of Hezbollah. As a small piece of a very large and complicated world stage, it supports your contention that we can often bear direct responsibility for some of the misfortunes that befall us.
I also defer to the Hasidic masters in Itturei Torah for their superior Torah knowledge. Their world view speaks clearly to the time in which they lived. When Jews have been powerless in history, there has been little point in assigning blame since there was no hope of their seeing justice served. But I believe that now that Jews are not so powerless, our relative freedom (compared to theirs) should allow us a little more leeway to return to the original intent of the text.
I maintain that Amalek is different from other situations in the Tanakh, and that the analogy of America and Iran is inaccurate in this situation. Hashem doesn’t shy from holding Israel (individually and collectively) responsible for its mistakes and punishing us accordingly. The Israelites were scolded by God for celebrating after the destruction of Pharaoh’s army; we were meant to have some mercy for them, despite everything they had done to us. The Itturei Torah, R. Zevitt, and you are not holding Israel wholly blameless for Amalek’s attack, but I think God is. Why else would Hashem have given the very unusual commandment to stamp out every last trace of Amalek? Amalek is unique, and this uniqueness is defined as Amalek’s total responsibility for the attack. To search for a more moderate interpretation is to deny the shocking but very important message here: that there is wanton evil in the world.
I believe that a more accurate analogy for the Amalek story is rape. No one asks for it, and sometimes, no matter how modestly one dresses, or how many precautions one takes not to talk to strangers or walk alone in parking garages, sometimes it still happens. To look back and try to find ways to blame oneself may be a natural response, but ultimately the responsibility for the attack lies with the attacker.
For those who still consider this parashah a threatening, disturbing one, consider this: the parashah is called Zachor (remember). Not Harog (kill) or Ratzach (murder). Just Zachor. You are required to remember that baseless evil exists in the world and, where possible, to eradicate it in whatever manner is appropriate. Jews hear this Maftir, squirm in their seats, sweat a little, then pour out of shul, go home, eat a nice meal with family and friends, maybe think about it for a day or two, then get on with their lives. They don’t do what Christians did for centuries at Easter: hear the vitriol about Jews killing Jesus and go out and slaughter their Jewish neighbors.
The Torah could have been written with no mention of Amalek. It could have been filled with stories like the rest, where Israel fights with its neighbors, wins some and messes up some, but keeps plugging away through the generations. But Amalek is in there, and I think this is one of those times when we should hear what the Torah has to say, sit with it, feel uncomfortable, and not search for milder interpretations that can let us get out of dealing with a small piece of the brutality of existence on this earth.
My 20 agurot worth.
20 agurot??? Don’t sell yourself short Shimshonit! That must be worth a few shekelim anyway ;)!
I am not sure that the Itturei Torah’s take on the Amalek issue should be thought of as a "milder interpretation," but one that assess the issue from another angle, to make the most complete response possible. There is pure evil in the word, AND there is a way to deal with it in a way that protects you to the fullest extent possible. I don’t think they meant to suggest that Amalek should be tolerated, but that in addition to remembering Amalek, we must also remember how slightly different actions on our part could have dulled some of the effects of Amalek’s crime against the weakest. Or, considering my Iran example, Hezbollah is Anti-Semitic hatred embodied, and in confrontation must be dealt with harshly. AND, perhaps Western powers should end the practice of overthrowing democratically-elected, secular leaders in order to insert draconian puppet regimes and gain access to resources, so people in those lands do not become a receptive audience for the future Mahmud Ahmadinajads and Hassan Nasrallahs of the world. One can respond strongly to pure evil while still making well-devised plans to mitigate exposure in the future, without being a softy or mild.
Thanks for your thoughts and comments!
Yair