Amalek in Tanach

Reuven Kimelman has an article in the Seforim blog exploring the nation of Amalek as they appear throughout Tanach. From his close analysis, he comes to some novel conclusions which I would summarize as follows:

1. The mitzva to remember Amalek is presented in the Chumash as moral rather than ethnic in nature
2. The mitzva to blot out the nation of Amalek is limited to a future time, specifically Shaul Hamelech's campaign(in which he spares Agag and much of the booty and is told the kingship will be given to another)

This latter point is based on the observation that Amalek appears many times in Nach, but that only during Shaul's campaign does the scripture relate to them as meriting annihilation.

As such, the command in Dvarim 25:19 is read not as a mitzva for the generations, but rather as a reason for the mitzva of remembering Amalek and the promise of a future effort to destroy Amalek, limited to a particular time period.

וְהָיָה בְּהָנִיחַ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְךָ מִכָּל-אֹיְבֶיךָ מִסָּבִיב, בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ – תִּמְחֶה אֶת-זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק, מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם; לֹא תִּשְׁכָּח.

This brings us back to a previous post on this blog about the relationship between the two mitzvot, to remember and to destroy Amalek. Kimelman's approach lines up with that of the Minchat Chinuch, that we have two independent mitzvot, differing in the historical period during which they apply, as well as in who is obligated.

Parshat Zachor: Derabanan or Deoraita

So, in the second half of Rav M's lecture, I noticed that he understands the machloket whether Parshat Zachor is derabanan or deoraita differently than I did. I spoke to him briefly afterwards and indeed he takes a more subtle approach and I'm going to try and do it justice.

Both the Sefer Hachinuch and the Magen Avram(או"ח תרפה:ב) describe the debate about Parshat Zachor, whether it is Miderabanan or Mideoraita. I took this at face value to be saying that either the sages instituted it as a way to fulfill the mitzva of remembering Amalek or else it is simply the Torah method to fulfill the mitzva. There are several problems with this understanding:

• The Mitzva, as stated in the Torah, doesn't sound like it involves reading this exact parsha
• There was clearly some involvement of the Sages, at the very least in setting the time for reading Parshat Zachor, since yearly torah reading is a much later minhag
• The Gemara in Megilla 18A that I quoted in the previous post learns halachot of Megilla reading from Parshat Zachor. If Parshat Zachor is mideoraita, then how can we learn from it to Megilla reading, something that was instituted later

Rav Markus gave a more subtle explanation of the debate, both sides of which involve the participation of both the sages and Torah law. 

• Chazal instituted Parshat Zachor along with the other 4 special parshiot. One does fulfill the Torah commandment to remember Amalek but ultimately there are other paths to fulfillment and any verbal retelling of the story should suffice.
• The Torah commanded us to remember Amalek, but left it to Chazal to decide how. Chazal instituted Parshat zachor as the means and so it is now the only method to fulfill the mitzva. This concept of תורה מסרה לחכמים is also used to explain issur melacha on chol hamoed and שאר עינוים on Yom Kippur.

Relationship Between the Amalek-Related Mitzvot

So, the first half of Rav M's class focused on a fundamental question that I didn't consider in my learning of the sugya: what is the relationship between the mitzva to eliminate Amalek and the mitzva to remember Amalek? (similar to the question of Maakeh and Lo Tasim Damim)

• Sefer Yereim says that these are actually two parts of a single mitzva. The obligation to remember Amalek is simply a requisite for bringing about their eventual destruction
• The Rambam Sefer Hamitzvot(מ"ע קעט) says they are two separate mitzvot. He ultimately agrees with the Yereim though that the mitzva to remember is there to help implement the mitzva to eliminate Amalek
• There was some discussion about whether the Rambam's Mishneh Torah(מלכים ה:ה) took a different approach to that in Sefer Hamitzvot. I wasn't really convinced by those who were arguing there was a difference--the Rambam is very succinct here and what he says sounds compatible with his approach there.
• The Sefer Hachinuch sounds basically the same as the Rambam, although he does mention an independent reason for the mitzva to remember: so that we should know that Hashem hates those who want to harm the nation of Israel
• The Minchat Chunuch goes further, suggesting that the two mitzvot are independent of one another

So ultimately we have two basic answers:

1. The mitzva to eliminate Amalek is the dominant one, with the mitzva to remember being subservient to it
2. The mitzvot are independent of one another, despite their similar context

 The Rav brought 3 nafka minot of this machloket:

1. The Sefer Hachinich states that women are excluded from the obligation to remember because it's the men who are actually required to make war on Amalek. The Minchat Chinuch argues that the mitzvot are independent so women should be obligated to remember Amalek(he also argues that in any case women are obligated to make war on Amalek too)
2. Once Amalek ARE destroyed are we still obligated to remember them?
3. Rav Frank in מקראי קודש brings the question of whether one can fulfill his obligation if he reads the parsha at the end of Beshalach instead of parshat Zachor. If the mitzvot are independent, then yes. If not then only Zachor mentions the obligation to eliminate Amalek, so only it will suffice.

Let's Learn: Amalek-Related Mitzvot

So today's source sheet at the yeshiva next door said "No sources today. Learn the mitzvot regarding Amalek on your own." So let's try that.  Today's post will be a summary of what I learned on my own. Then I'll make another post once I've read some contemporary sources and I'll note some of the things I missed, mistakes I made, other approaches, etc.

So Amalek is mentioned twice in the Torah:

• at the end of parshat Beshalach when they attack Bnei Yisrael
• at the end of parshat Ki Tetzeh when Moshe commands Bnei Yisrael in the mitzvot

Sefer Hachinuch lists three mitzvot we learn from parshiah in Ki Tetzeh:

1. Remember what Amalek did
2. Don't forget what Amalek did
3. Wipe-out all of Amalek's descendents

Parshat Zachor with a Minyan

One of the more interesting questions I came across regards the status of Parshat Zachor, which we read, directly from the Torah, once a year. It's an interesting question because it gets to the heart of the matter as to how to fulfill the mitzva of Remembering. Basically the two opinions are:

1. The mitzva is to remember what Amalek did and express it verbally, but there is no formal way you're supposed to express it. Chazal then came and instituted Parshat Zachor in order to formalize this a bit more.
2. Reading Parshat Zachor as we read it is actually the Torah mitzva.

This second approach would seem to be the more surprising one, since other mitzvot to "remember" don't need to be read from an actual Torah scroll. Nevertheless, the Magen Avraham(או"ח תרפה:ב)lists the rishonim who hold of this view. So where does this approach come from?

The Magen Avraham lists the gemara in Megila 18A as a possible source. It learns out our obligation to read megilla from a sefer from our obligation to read Zachor from a sefer. The question we need to ask, presumably, is whether the drashot are legit or are merely an asmachta:

קראה על פה לא יצא וכו':מנלן אמר רבא אתיא זכירה זכירה כתיב הכא והימים האלה נזכרים וכתיב התם (שמות יז, יד) כתב זאת זכרון בספר מה להלן בספר אף כאן בספר וממאי דהאי זכירה קריאה היא דלמא עיון בעלמא לא סלקא דעתך (דכתיב) (דברים כה, יז) זכור יכול בלב כשהוא אומר לא תשכח הרי שכחת הלב אמור הא מה אני מקיים זכור בפה:

Two weird things about this limmud are:

• The hekkesh is from Beshalach, rather than from Ki Tetzeh where we actually get the mitzva of remembering Amalek
• The gemara brings a drasha that Zachor needs to be vocalized, but it doesn't bring any proof that it needs to be read from the sefer Torah with a minyan. For example, maybe you could say it when you're alone from a copy of the parsha or even from memory. Shema, vidui maaserot/bikumim, and the obligation to remember the Exodus all have less stringent requirements, for example.

So maybe it's just an asmachta. But maybe we just need to dig a little deeper... left So let's actually look at the pasuk in Beshalach:

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, כְּתֹב זֹאת זִכָּרוֹן בַּסֵּפֶר, וְשִׂים, בְּאָזְנֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ:  כִּי-מָחֹה אֶמְחֶה אֶת-זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק, מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם (שמות יז:יד(

The Ramban understands the pasuk as follows: Moshe is commanded to write the Amalek story in the Torah in order that we remember it:

יאמר כתוב זאת בספר תורתי שיזכרו בני ישראל מה שעשה עמלק. 

According to this understanding, when we are actually commanded to remember Amalek in Ki Tetzeh, it's quite natural to assume that the way we are supposed to do so is by reading from the Torah, since that's the reason Moshe included the story there to begin with. So that explains the opinion that Parshat Zachor is Mideoreita a bit better.

Other Topics

Some other topics I stumbled upon were how often do we have to remember, are women required to remember, as well as the question of why Amalek deserve such harsh retribution, but those will have to wait for another time...