PROVIDENCE VERSUS CHANCE - MEGILLA INSIGHTS

One of the recurring themes in the story of Purim is the conflicting ideologies of the Jewish people and Amalek. The Jewish people believe that Divine Providence guides history, nothing is mere ‘coincidence’. In stark contrast, Amalek believe that everything happens by mere chance (mikreh). Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l brought out a fascinating idea with regard to this ideological clash. He began in Parshas Mikeitz, where Yaakov Avinu refuses to send Binyomin to Mitzrayim. He explained his fear that “perhaps a disaster will happen. Rav Kamenetsky noted that the Hebrew word for ‘happening’ of ‘mikreh’ is spelt here with an ‘aleph’. In Parshas Vayigash, Yehuda recalls the words of Yaakov to the Egyptian Viceroy . “If you also take this one [Biinyomin] from me, a disaster may happen..” On this occasion, the letter ‘aleph’ is omitted from the word, ‘mikreh‘. What is the reason for this change?

Rav Kamenetsky explains, that the regular spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’ is without an aleph, and in this form it refers to mere chance. However, when an ‘aleph’ is added, the word ’kara’ (call) is formed. This means that an event is ’called from Heaven’, referring to the fact that there is no coincidence, rather everything takes place because of Divine Providence. With this explanation we can understand the divergence of the spelling of the word, ‘mikreh’. when Yaakov is speaking to Yehuda, he expresses his fear that, if Binyomin would travel to Egypt, Divine Providence may decree that some kind of disaster should befall him. Yaakov was well aware that anything that could happen would not be due to mere chance. When Yehuda was recalling Yaakov’s words he was speaking to Yosef, whom he thought was a non-Jew who was unaware of Divine Providence. Accordingly, he could not express Yaakov’s attitude with regard to Divine Providence because he knew that a non-Jew could not relate to such a concept. Accordingly, he expressed the word, ‘mikreh’ without the ‘aleph’ to refer to mere chance.

Dayan Chanoch Erentrau shlita asked Rav Kamenetsky that a passuk from Megillas Esther seemed to contradict the explanation that ‘mikreh’ without an ‘aleph’ refers to an expression of mere chance. After Mordechai became aware of the Decree to destroy the Jewish people he began mourning. Esther sent her messenger, Hasach to find out what had happened. The Megilla writes, “And Mordechai told him about everything that had happened..” In this instance, the word, ‘mikreh’ is written without an ‘aleph’, which alludes to a belief in chance.. According to Rav Kamenetsky’s aforementioned explanation, this should imply that Mordechai was describing the events that had taken place as being a result of mere chance, and not Divine Providence!

Rav Kamenetksy answered him that the Medrash dealt with this problem. The Medrash notes the use of the word, ‘mikreh’ and explains that Mordechai was alluding to the fact that the nation that epitomizes the belief in chance, was behind the decree to destroy the Jews. That nation was Amalek, of whom the Torah writes, “who happened (korcha) upon you on the way.” Thus, Mordechai was not attributing the Decree to chance, rather he was telling Esther that the Decree was initiated by a member of the nation of Amalek (Haman), who represent the belief that everything is mere ‘mikreh’ (chance).

On a deeper level, it seems that Mordechai was telling Esther that the reason that Amalek were able to threaten the Jews with destruction, was the very same reason that they were able to attack the Jewish people in the desert. The people had expressed their doubts about the presence of HaShem in their midst, when they exclaimed, “is HaShem amongst us or not?!” When the Jewish people attribute events to chance, HaShem measure for measure, allows us to be subject to the rules of chance and ceases protecting us. Therefore, the people’s questioning of Divine Providence enabled Amalek, the ultimate deniers of such Providence, to attack. So too, at the beginning of the Purim story, the Jewish people were far less aware of HaShem’s presence amongst them due to the loss of the Temple and the exile. This decline in belief in Divine Providence gave Haman the ability to threaten them. Only by recognizing that HaShem drives all events, good or bad, could they merit Divine intervention to save them. May we merit to see HaShem’s Hand in everything that takes place around us.

EDUCATION THROUGH ENCOURAGEMENT - VAYISHLACH

The Parsha ends with an account of the genealogy of Esav. In the midst of this we are told of the birth of Amalek, the progenitor of the nation that would constantly strive to destroy Klal Yisroel. “And Timna was a concubine to Eliphaz and Eliphaz gave birth to Amalek.. ” The Gemara in Sanhedrin informs us of the background to this terrible occurrence. “Timna was a Princess, but she wanted to convert. She came to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov [to convert] but they would not accept her . She then became a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esav. She said that it was better to be a maidservant to this nation rather than be a powerful woman in another nation. [As a result] Amalek, who would cause Yisroel great pain, was born from her. What is the reason [that this incident produced Amalek]? Because they [the Avos] should not have distanced her. ” Rashi explains that the Gemara means that they should have allowed her to convert .

It seems clear that the Avos had sufficient reason to reject Timna’s efforts to join their nation. They were aware of the evil within Timna’s nature . Consequently, they refused to allow her to join the Jewish people. Accordingly, why were they punished so harshly for their seemingly correct decision? Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l explains that we learn from here that no matter how bad a person is, one should not totally reject him . It seems that the explanation for this is that as long as there remains any hope that the person will improve their ways it is forbidden to distance them and thereby remove any chance of their doing teshuva. Evidently, there was enough hidden potential within Timna that justified allowing her to join Klal Yisroel.

Rav Shmuelevitz says that we learn a similar lesson with regards to Avraham Avinu’s relationship with his wayward nephew, Lot. Avraham only split up with Lot when machlokes threatened to sour their relationship. Rav Shmuelevitz points out that Avraham did not receive prophecy whilst Lot was with him due to Lot’s presence. Nonetheless, Avraham refrained from distancing Lot until he perceived that there was no hope of preventing Lot’s yerida. Despite all of Avraham’s efforts and self-sacrifice in helping Lot, Chazal still criticize him for distancing his nephew. “Rav Yehuda says, there was anger against Avraham Avinu at the time that he separated his nephew from him; Hashem said, ‘He (Avraham) clings to everyone but to his own nephew he does not cling?!’ ” Even though Avraham made great efforts to influence Lot and was even prepared to lose the gift of prophecy in order to influence him , nonetheless he is criticized for eventually sending him away .

We have seen how it is incorrect to reject someone if there is any chance of saving him. What then is the correct approach to dealing with this difficult issue? The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh sheds light on how to deal with a wayward child in his explanation of why Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav instead of Yaakov. He argues that Yitzchak was totally aware of Esav’s low spiritual level, and he nevertheless wanted to give him the Brachos. He writes; “The reason that Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav Harasha was that he believed that through receiving the blessings, he (Esav) would change for the good and improve his ways, because righteous people feel pain when their children do evil and he (Yitzchak) was trying to help him improve his ways. And it is possible that it would have worked. ” The Ohr HaChaim does not explain how giving Esav the blessings would have caused him to improve his ways. It is possible that giving the Brachos to Esav would give him great encouragement and show him that his father had faith in his ability to continue the legacy of the Avos. Such a show of confidence could in and of itself be the catalyst to causing Esav to change his ways. We learn from here that encouraging and showing faith in the wayward person is a key tool in helping him find faith in himself and giving him the strength to change his ways.

We see this principle with regard to a remarkable story involving Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt”l. There was a bachur in his yeshiva who was struggling badly with his learning. As a result he was severely lacking in self-confidence and found himself in a downward spiral that placed him in great danger of drifting away from observance. Rav Hutner was giving a Gemara shiur and this Bachur asked a seemingly ordinary kasha. On one occasion Rav Hutner responded as if he had asked a tremendous question and throughout the shiur repeated it several times with great admiration. Receiving such adulation from a Gadol gave a tremendous boost of self-confidence to the boy. As a result, after this one occasion he stemmed his yerida and experienced an incredible turnaround in his confidence, learning and general observance. His relatives described Rav Hutner’s achievement as no less than ‘techias hameisim’ . By showing this young man that he was able to learn, Rav Hutner was able to give him the boost that saved his Yiddishkeit.

We learn from the incident with Timna that rejecting a person as a hopeless cause is a very serious matter. If Chazal tell us that Timna, the person who produced Amalek, was deserving of a chance to join Klal Yisroel, all the more so, a person who is struggling with his Yiddishkeit, deserves the opportunity to improve himself. We also learn from the Ohr HaChaim’s explanation in Parshas Toldos that showing faith in a person is a tremendous way of helping him change his ways. These principles do not only apply with regard to people drifting from Torah, they also apply to our general hanhagos with our children, students and people around us. The Gemara in Sotah tells us that we should push away with our left hand and bring in with our right. The right hand is stronger than the left, thus the Gemara is telling us that we should always give precedence to positive reinforcement over criticism. Showing others the inherent good in them is the most effective way of bringing about improvement. May we all merit to bring out the best in ourselves and those around us.

DEFINING EVIL - PARSHAS ZACHOR

In the end of Parshas Ki Seitsei, the Torah commands us to remember the attack of Amalek against the Jewish people, when we were leaving Mitzrayim. This mitzvo is fulfilled by reading the portion that commands us with regard to this remembrance. Towards the end of the portion we are also commanded to wipe out the memory of Amalek - this means we must destroy any Amalek adult, child and animal. A person may find the command to destroy a whole nation difficult to understand.

Indeed this mitzvo troubled the righteous King, Shaul HaMelech when he was commanded to destroy the whole nation of Amalek. Understanding the underlying mistake in this episode will help us answer the question above. The Prophet tells us that, on Hashem's command, Shmuel HaNavi instructed Shaul to wipe out the whole nation, including the women, children, and animals. Shaul defeated the Amalekim in the subsequent battle, and did kill everyone with the exception of the Amalekite King, Agag, and a few animals. The gemara offers an explanation as to Shaul's reluctance to kill all the Amalekim. It tells us that Shaul made a kal v'chomer ; he noted the mitzvo of egla arufa - this is a solemn ceremony that takes place upon the murder of a person in between two cities. It demonstrates the Torah's concern with regard to a single death, and its emphasis on the value of human life. Shaul reasoned that if a single human life had so much value, all the more so that is the case with regard to a whole nation. The gemara further tells us that in reaction to Shaul's 'merciful' reasoning, a Bas kol (Heavenly voice) came out, and said, "do not be overly righteous". A short time later, Shaul was pursuing David HaMelech as he felt David threatened Shaul's kingship. David took refuge with a group of Kohanim who lived in the city of Nov. Unaware of Shaul's enmity to David, they fed David and provided him with a sword. When Shaul heard about this, he ordered the murder of the whole city. At that time, another Bas Kol came out, saying, "do not be overly evil."

The Medrash makes a puzzling observation connecting these two incidents: "Anyone who is merciful in a situation where he should be cruel, eventually, he will be cruel in a situation where he should be merciful. The Medrash states clearly that it is inevitable that one who is inappropriately merciful will come to be cruel in an unsuitable manner. Why is this course of events so certain? My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita explains that Shaul's underlying mistake was that he put his own natural emotions before the Torah's commands. Accordingly, in a situation where his natural sense of justice contradicted with a command to kill children, he chose his emotions ahead of detaching himself from his emotions in order to fulfill Hashem's word. However, in another situation, his emotions communicated to him a very different message; he perceived that David was a threat to his whole family, therefore he felt that anyone helping David was also a threat to his family and must be killed. Again, he placed his emotions before the Torah's instructions and ordered the ruthless murder of innocent people. Now we can understand the inexorable connection between Shaul's misplaced mercy and his inappropriate cruelty. A person who follows his emotions to the side of 'mercy' is nonetheless at the whim of his emotions and not morality as defined by the Torah. Therefore it is inevitable that on a separate occasion his emotions will pull him in a different direction and cause him to be overly cruel.

The account of Shaul’s failure to wipe out Amalek ended when Shmuel HaNavi personally struck down King Agag. The Ralbag brings out a remarkable point in this incident. Shmuel had Agag brought in front of him in chains. When Agag saw the righteous Shmuel, he exclaimed: “sar mar hamaves”. The Ralbag understands that Agag was saying that the bitterness of death had now gone away. This is because when he saw Shmuel he recognized his attributes of kindness and mercy, and thus he presumed that Shmuel would show mercy upon him. However, Shmuel quickly corrected Agag, telling him that he deserved to die, and he subsequently killed him. Shmuel was a merciful person because, in general, the Torah encourages the trait of mercy. However, on this occasion, Shmuel knew that mercy was inappropriate and, in this instance, the seemingly ‘cruel’ act of killing was the moral course of action because that was HaShem‘s will.

These incidents help us recognize that one cannot define morality according to his own subjective feelings and beliefs. When a person acts in such a way, he can begin to justify all kinds of evil actions. Indeed this is a common trend in secular society. People that do not believe in an objective morality feel free to define what constitutes ‘murder‘, for example. Thus, they judge that killing unborn fetuses or terminally ill people are valid courses of action. The Torah Jew recognizes that all human attempts to define morality are subject to terrible misuse. The only valid way of defining morality is by following the Torah's guidelines. Indeed morality, like everything else in the universe, was created and defined by HaShem. Accordingly, when a person finds it difficult to understand the moral nature of a Mitzvo in the Torah, this does not mean that the Mtizvo is immoral chas v’Shalom. Rather, it means that the person is following his own natural emotions and inclinations. The Torah encourages emotional expression, but only after a person has channeled his emotions through the prism of Torah. Then, he can shift his emotions to be in line with Torah morality.

With such an understanding, we realize that if HaShem commands us to destroy an entire nation, then that is the moral course of action. Indeed it is commendable to try to understand why the Torah makes such a command, and with some contemplation as to what Amalek represent, it is not difficult to understand. Nonetheless, the foundation is to recognize that the Torah conception of morality is the only valid one.

REMEMBERING AMALEK - PARSHAS ZACHOR

Throughout history, many nations have tried to destroy the Jewish people. However, we are commanded to permanently remember the attack of only one of these nations; that of Amalek, when they attacked the Jewish people shortly after the splitting of the Sea.

In order to gain a deeper understanding of the danger that Amalek poses to the Jewish nation, it is instructive to closely analyze the commandment to remember their heinous deed: "Remember what Amalek did to you, on the way when you were leaving Egypt; that he happened upon you on the way. and he struck those of you who were hindmost, all the weaklings at your rear, when you were faint and exhausted, and he did not fear G-d."

The majority of the verse focuses on Amalek's despicable actions, such as how they attacked us when we were weak and tired. However, the end of the verse points out the main negative characteristic that Amalek displayed - that they did not fear G-d. Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita notes that Amalek are known to be the epitome of evil, and surely possess numerous terrible traits and beliefs. Accordingly, he asks that it is difficult to understand why the Torah focused in particular on the seemingly mild flaw of lacking in ‘yiras Shamayim’?

He explains that the Torah is teaching us that the root cause of Amalek’s evil character was his lack of yiras Shamayim. Why is this the case? One significant aspect of Yiras Shamayim is that one who fears G-d is aware of Hashem’s involvement in the world. He sees Divine Providence in everything that takes place. He then takes this awareness and uses it to understand how HaShem is communicating to him. This greater recognition brings one who fears G-d closer to fulfilling His will.

In contrast, one who lacks yiras Shamayim is blind to the events around him. He does not see G-d’s hand in the most miraculous events, rather he irrationally ascribes it to the random laws of nature. Thus, he is not moved by anything, no matter how remarkable. Such a person will never come closer to the truth because nothing effects him. Amalek epitomized this trait. They were aware of the remarkable miracles of the Ten Plagues and the splitting of the Sea, yet they paid no attention to the logical consequences of these events - that there is an All-Powerful Being who was guiding the Jewish people. They refused to recognize any sense of uniqueness about the Jewish people and flagrantly attacked them. In this way, their lack of ‘yiras Shamayim’ was the source of their evil actions.

This idea is further described by the Torah: It explains how Amalek “happened upon” the Jewish people. The hebrew word used here is ‘korcha’. Chazal teach us that the root of korcha is similar to the word for ’cold’ - ‘kor’ - Amalek cooled down the world’s fear of the Jewish people that they felt after the miracles of yetsias Mitzrayim. They bring an analogy of a boiling hot bath, that is so hot that no person can go inside. Then, one person jumps inside it. He burns himself but he cools it down for the other people to be able to go in it. Similarly, the non-Jewish nations were afraid to fight the Jewish people after all the miracles that they had experienced. Amalek paid no heed to these miracles and attacked. Even though they greatly damaged themselves, they also reduced the fear of the other nations towards the Jews.

Why did Amalek respond differently from the other nations, to the miracles of yetsias Mitzrayim. The non-Jews worshipped false G-ds but they believed in the idea of a power guiding a nation. Accordingly, they believed in the 'G-d of the Jews' and paid heed to His protection of the Jewish people. Amalek, in contrast, seem to have been atheists. They believed in no force, therefore they attributed all of the wondrous events of yetsias Mitzrayim to chance. Accordingly, they could ignore all the signs and jump into the boiling bathtub.

We have seen that the root of Amalek's evil was their belief in the randomness of events and the accompanying total rejection of a Higher Being. This caused them to react 'coldly' to everything that they witnessed, and even to cause other nations to 'cool down' their fear of the Jewish people. This attitude is something that is unique to Amalek amongst all the nations, and in a certain sense, poses more of a danger to Torah observance than the idolatrous beliefs of the other nations. It causes 'believing' Jews to lose their sense of wonder about the miracles that surround them, and to even subconsciously attribute them to chance. Moreover, it prevents a person from learning from events around him, making him immune to the lessons that Hashem sends him. in this vein, Rav Sternbuch discusses a person who merits to see the salvations of HaShem and His wonders, yet remains blind to what goes on around him, and is not aroused to fear HaShem. Rav Sternbuch writes that such a person should know that he is surrounded by impurity and is under the influence of Amalek.

When we read Parshas Zachor we should focus on the lack of yiras Hashem that characterized Amalek. Through this contemplation may we merit to remove the power of Amalek from the world.

DEFINING EVIL - PARSHAS ZACHOR

In the end of Parshas Ki Seitsei, the Torah commands us to remember the attack of Amalek against the Jewish people, when we were leaving Mitzrayim. This mitzvo is fulfilled by reading the portion that commands us with regard to this remembrance. Towards the end of the portion we are also commanded to wipe out the memory of Amalek - this means we must destroy any Amalek adult, child and animal.[1] A person may find the command to destroy a whole nation difficult to understand.

Indeed this mitzvo troubled the righteous King, Shaul HaMelech when he was commanded to destroy the whole nation of Amalek. Understanding the underlying mistake in this episode will help us answer the question above. The Prophet tells us that, on Hashem's command, Shmuel HaNavi instructed Shaul to wipe out the whole nation, including the women, children, and animals. Shaul defeated the Amalekim in the subsequent battle, and did kill everyone with the exception of the Amalekite King, Agag, and a few animals.[2] The gemara offers an explanation as to Shaul's reluctance to kill all the Amalekim. It tells us that Shaul made a kal v'chomer[3]; he noted the mitzvo of egla arufa[4] - this is a solemn ceremony that takes place upon the murder of a person in between two cities. It demonstrates the Torah's concern with regard to a single death, and its emphasis on the value of human life.[5] Shaul reasoned that if a single human life had so much value, all the more so that is the case with regard to a whole nation.[6] The gemara further tells us that in reaction to Shaul's 'merciful' reasoning, a Bas kol (Heavenly voice) came out, and said, "do not be overly righteous".[7] A short time later, Shaul was pursuing David HaMelech as he felt David threatened Shaul's kingship. David took refuge with a group of Kohanim who lived in the city of Nov. Unaware of Shaul's enmity to David, they fed David and provided him with a sword.[8] When Shaul heard about this, he ordered the murder of the whole city. At that time, another Bas Kol came out, saying, "do not be overly evil."

The Medrash makes a puzzling observation connecting these two incidents: "Anyone who is merciful in a situation where he should be cruel, eventually, he will be cruel in a situation where he should be merciful.[9] The Medrash states clearly that it is inevitable that one who is inappropriately merciful will come to be cruel in an unsuitable manner. Why is this course of events so certain? My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita explains that Shaul's underlying mistake was that he put his own natural emotions before the Torah's commands.[10] Accordingly, in a situation where his natural sense of justice contradicted with a command to kill children, he chose his emotions ahead of detaching himself from his emotions in order to fulfill Hashem's word. However, in another situation, his emotions communicated to him a very different message; he perceived that David was a threat to his whole family, therefore he felt that anyone helping David was also a threat to his family and must be killed. Again, he placed his emotions before the Torah's instructions and ordered the ruthless murder of innocent people. Now we can understand the inexorable connection between Shaul's misplaced mercy and his inappropriate cruelty. A person who follows his emotions to the side of 'mercy' is nonetheless at the whim of his emotions and not morality as defined by the Torah. Therefore it is inevitable that on a separate occasion his emotions will pull him in a different direction and cause him to be overly cruel.

The account of Shaul’s failure to wipe out Amalek ended when Shmuel HaNavi personally struck down King Agag. The Ralbag brings out a remarkable point in this incident. Shmuel had Agag brought in front of him in chains. When Agag saw the righteous Shmuel, he exclaimed: “sar mar hamaves”.[11] The Ralbag understands that Agag was saying that the bitterness of death had now gone away. This is because when he saw Shmuel he recognized his attributes of kindness and mercy, and thus he presumed that Shmuel would show mercy upon him. However, Shmuel quickly corrected Agag, telling him that he deserved to die, and he subsequently killed him. Shmuel was a merciful person because, in general, the Torah encourages the trait of mercy. However, on this occasion, Shmuel knew that mercy was inappropriate and, in this instance, the seemingly ‘cruel’ act of killing was the moral course of action because that was HaShem‘s will.

These incidents help us recognize that one cannot define morality according to his own subjective feelings and beliefs. When a person acts in such a way, he can begin to justify all kinds of evil actions. Indeed this is a common trend in secular society. People that do not believe in an objective morality feel free to define what constitutes ‘murder‘, for example. Thus, they judge that killing unborn fetuses or terminally ill people are valid courses of action. The Torah Jew recognizes that all human attempts to define morality are subject to terrible misuse. The only valid way of defining morality is by following the Torah's guidelines. Indeed morality, like everything else in the universe, was created and defined by HaShem. Accordingly, when a person finds it difficult to understand the moral nature of a Mitzvo in the Torah, this does not mean that the Mtizvo is immoral chas v’Shalom. Rather, it means that the person is following his own natural emotions and inclinations. The Torah encourages emotional expression, but only after a person has channeled his emotions through the prism of Torah. Then, he can shift his emotions to be in line with Torah morality.

With such an understanding, we realize that if HaShem commands us to destroy an entire nation, then that is the moral course of action. Indeed it is commendable to try to understand why the Torah makes such a command, and with some contemplation as to what Amalek represent, it is not difficult to understand.[12] Nonetheless, the foundation is to recognize that the Torah conception of morality is the only valid one.


[1] It should be pointed out that the Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvo 604) points out that we cannot technically fulfill this mitzvo because we cannot identify who is really an Amaleki. This is because the Assyrian King, Senchariv moved around all the nations to the extent that their true identity was lost.
[2] Shmuel 1, Ch.15.
[3] This is a kind of logical argument, which is best translated as "all the more so".
[4] Literally meaning, the 'calf with the broken neck'.
[5] See Parshas Shoftim, 21:1-9 for the details of this mitzvo.
[6] Yoma, 22b. There are a number of difficulties with this gemara, foremost amongst them of how Shaul could disregard Hashem's clear instructions to wipe out the whole nation. See Ben Yehoyada, Anaf Yosef, and Rif in Iyun Yaakov for approaches. In this essay, we will follow the simple meaning of the gemara, that Shaul felt it was immoral to wipe out the whole nation of Amalek.
[7] This is part of a verse from Kohelel, Ch.7.
[8] Shmuel 1, Ch.21.
[9] Koheles Rabbah, 7:33, 16. Medrash Tanchuma, Metsora, 1.
[10] It should be noted that Shaul HaMelech was a very great tzaddik, and, the sins of great people recorded in Tanach are always magnified so that we can relate to them.
[11] Shmuel 1, Ch.15:32.
[12] One way to help understand what Amalek represents it to equate them to the Nazis yemach shemam. By doing this, one would find a command to destroy them as being far more understandable.

REMEMBERING THE EVIL OF AMALEK - PARSHAS ZACHOR

Throughout history, many nations have tried to destroy the Jewish people. However, we are commanded to permanently remember the attack of only one of these nations; that of Amalek, when they attacked the Jewish people shortly after the splitting of the Sea.

In order to gain a deeper understanding of the danger that Amalek poses to the Jewish nation, it is instructive to closely analyze the commandment to remember Amalek's heinous deed: "Remember what Amalek did to you, on the way when you were leaving Egypt; that he happened upon you on the way. and he struck those of you who were hindmost, all the weaklings at your rear, when you were faint and exhausted, and he did not fear G-d."[1]

The majority of the verse focus on Amalek's despicable actions, such as how they attacked us when we were weak and tired. However, the end of the verse points out the main negative characteristic that Amalek displayed - that they did not fear G-d. Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita notes that Amalek are known to be the epitome of evil, and surely possess numerous terrible traits and beliefs. Accordingly, he asks that it is difficult to understand why the Torah focused in particular on the seemingly mild flaw of lacking in ‘yiras Shamayim’?

He explains that the Torah is teaching us that the root cause of Amalek’s evil character was his lack of yiras Shamayim.[2] Why is this the case? One significant aspect of Yiras Shamayim is that one who fears G-d is aware of Hashem’s involvement in the world. He sees Divine Providence in everything that takes place. But a mere awareness does not suffice; he takes this awareness and uses it to understand how HaShem is communicating to him. This greater recognition brings one who fears G-d closer to fulfilling His will.

In contrast, one who lacks yiras Shamayim is blind to the events around him. He does not see G-d’s hand in the most miraculous events, rather he irrationally ascribes it to the random laws of nature. Thus, he is not moved by anything, no matter how remarkable. Such a person will never come closer to the truth because nothing effects him. Amalek epitomized this trait. They were aware of the remarkable miracles of the Ten Plagues and the splitting of the Sea, yet they paid no attention to the logical consequences of these events - that there is an All-Powerful Being who was guiding the Jewish people. They refused to recognize any sense of uniqueness about the Jewish people and flagrantly attacked them. In this way, their lack of ‘yiras Shamayim’ was the source of their evil actions.

This idea is further described by the Torah: It explains how Amalek “happened upon” the Jewish people. The hebrew word used here is ‘korcha’. Chazal teach us that the root of korcha is similar to the word for ’cold’ - ‘kor’ - Amalek cooled down the world’s fear of the Jewish people that they felt after the miracles of yetsias Mitzrayim. They bring an analogy of a boiling hot bath, that is so hot that no person can go inside. Then, one person jumps inside it. He burns himself but he cools it down for the other people to be able to go in it. Similarly, the non-Jewish nations were attack to fight the Jewish people after all the miracles that they had experienced. Amalek paid no heed to these miracles and attacked. Even though they greatly damaged themselves, they also reduced the fear of the other nations towards the Jews.

Why did Amalek respond differently from the other nations, to the miracles of yetsas Mitzrayim. The non-Jews worshipped false G-ds but they believed in the idea of a power guiding a nation. Accordingly, they believed in the 'G-d of the Jews' and paid heed to His protection of the Jewish people. Amalek, in contrast, seem to have been atheists. They believed in no force, therefore they attributed all of the wondrous events of yetsias Mitzrayim to chance. Accordingly, they could ignore all the signs and jump into the boiling bathtub.

We have seen that the root of Amalek's evil was their belief in the randomness of events and the accompanying total rejection of a Higher Being. This caused them to react 'coldly' to everything that they witnessed, and even to cause other nations to 'cool down' their fear of the Jewish people. This attitude is something that is unique to Amalek amongst all the nations, and in a certain sense, poses more of a danger to Torah observance than the idolatrous beliefs of the other nations. It causes 'believing' Jews to lose their sense of wonder about the miracles that surround them, and to even subconsciously attribute them to chance. Moreover, it prevents a person from learning from events around him, making him immune to the lessons that Hashem sends him. in this vein, Rav Sternbuch writes that a person who merits to see the salvations of HaShem and His wonders, yet remains are blind to what goes on around him, and is not aroused to fear Hashem; he should know that he is surrounded by impurity and is under the influence of Amalek.[3]

When we read Parshas Zachor we should focus on the lack of yiras Hashem that characterized Amalek. Through this contemplation may we merit to remove the power of Amalek from the world.
[1] Ki Seitsei, 25:17-18.
[2] Taam v’Daas, Devarim, Ki Seitzei,25:18, p.163. Also see Ayeles Hashachar of Rav Aryeh Yehuda Leib Shteinman shlita, Ki Seitzei, 25:18, for a similar approach.
[3] Ibid.

EDUCATION THROUGH ENCOURAGEMENT - VAYISHLACH

The Parsha ends with an account of the genealogy of Esav. In the midst of this we are told of the birth of Amalek, the progenitor of the nation that would constantly strive to destroy Klal Yisroel. “And Timna was a concubine to Eliphaz and Eliphaz gave birth to Amalek..” The Gemara in Sanhedrin informs us of the background to this terrible occurrence. “Timna was a Princess, but she wanted to convert. She came to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov [to convert] but they would not accept her. She then became a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esav. She said that it was better to be a maidservant to this nation rather than be a powerful woman in another nation. [As a result] Amalek, who would cause Yisroel great pain, was born from her. What is the reason [that this incident produced Amalek]? Because they [the Avos] should not have distanced her.” Rashi explains that the Gemara means that they should have allowed her to convert.

It seems clear that the Avos had sufficient reason to reject Timna’s efforts to join their nation. They were aware of the evil within Timna’s nature. Consequently, they refused to allow her to join the Jewish people. Accordingly, why were they punished so harshly for their seemingly correct decision? Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l explains that we learn from here that no matter how bad a person is, one should not totally reject him. It seems that the explanation for this is that as long as there remains any hope that the person will improve their ways it is forbidden to distance them and thereby remove any chance of their doing teshuva. Evidently, there was enough hidden potential within Timna that justified allowing her to join Klal Yisroel.

Rav Shmuelevitz says that we learn a similar lesson with regards to Avraham Avinu’s relationship with his wayward nephew, Lot. Avraham only split up with Lot when machlokes threatened to sour their relationship. Rav Shmuelevitz points out that Avraham did not receive prophecy whilst Lot was with him due to Lot’s presence. Nonetheless, Avraham refrained from distancing Lot until he perceived that there was no hope of preventing Lot’s yerida. Despite all of Avraham’s efforts and self-sacrifice in helping Lot, Chazal still criticize him for distancing his nephew. “Rav Yehuda says, there was anger against Avraham Avinu at the time that he separated his nephew from him; Hashem said, ‘He (Avraham) clings to everyone but to his own nephew he does not cling?!’” Even though Avraham made great efforts to influence Lot and was even prepared to lose the gift of prophecy in order to influence him , nonetheless he is criticized for eventually sending him away.

We have seen how it is incorrect to reject someone if there is any chance of saving him. What then is the correct approach to dealing with this difficult issue? The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh sheds light on how to deal with a wayward child in his explanation of why Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav instead of Yaakov. He argues that Yitzchak was totally aware of Esav’s low spiritual level, and he nevertheless wanted to give him the Brachos. He writes; “The reason that Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav Harasha was that he believed that through receiving the blessings, he (Esav) would change for the good and improve his ways, because righteous people feel pain when their children do evil and he (Yitzchak) was trying to help him improve his ways. And it is possible that it would have worked.” The Ohr HaChaim does not explain how giving Esav the blessings would have caused him to improve his ways. It is possible that giving the Brachos to Esav would give him great encouragement and show him that his father had faith in his ability to continue the legacy of the Avos. Such a show of confidence could in and of itself be the catalyst to causing Esav to change his ways. We learn from here that encouraging and showing faith in the wayward person is a key tool in helping him find faith in himself and giving him the strength to change his ways.

We see this principle with regard to a remarkable story involving Rav Yitzchak Hutner zt”l. There was a bachur in his yeshiva who was struggling badly with his learning. As a result he was severely lacking in self-confidence and found himself in a downward spiral that placed him in great danger of drifting away from observance. Rav Hutner was giving a Gemara shiur and this Bachur asked a seemingly ordinary kasha. On one occasion Rav Hutner responded as if he had asked a tremendous question and throughout the shiur repeated it several times with great admiration. Receiving such adulation from a Gadol gave a tremendous boost of self-confidence to the boy. As a result, after this one occasion he stemmed his yerida and experienced an incredible turnaround in his confidence, learning and general observance. His relatives described Rav Hutner’s achievement as no less than ‘techias hameisim’. By showing this young man that he was able to learn, Rav Hutner was able to give him the boost that saved his Yiddishkeit.

We learn from the incident with Timna that rejecting a person as a hopeless cause is a very serious matter. If Chazal tell us that Timna, the person who produced Amalek, was deserving of a chance to join Klal Yisroel, all the more so, a person who is struggling with his Yiddishkeit, deserves the opportunity to improve himself. We also learn from the Ohr HaChaim’s explanation in Parshas Toldos that showing faith in a person is a tremendous way of helping him change his ways. These principles do not only apply with regard to people drifting from Torah, they also apply to our general hanhagos with our children, students and people around us. The Gemara in Sotah tells us that we should push away with our left hand and bring in with our right. The right hand is stronger than the left, thus the Gemara is telling us that we should always give precedence to positive reinforcement over criticism. Showing others the inherent good in them is the most effective way of bringing about improvement. May we all merit to bring out the best in ourselves and those around us.