Midreshet Amit

• LIVE TORAH:
• Academic Program
• Yimei Iyun
• FAQ
• Recent Shiurim
• View by Parsha
• View By Chag
• Search Database
• Ask the Rav

Judaism has never taken an absolutist attitude towards any emotion, including hate. As the famous pasuk in Koheles (3:8) tells us, not only is there an "es lehov," a time to love, there is also an "es lisno," there is also a time to hate. We don't always appreciate the uniqueness of this attitude. In fact, what we take for granted is actually a profoundly and particularly Jewish approach. We have had many enemies over the years and many people to whom "es lisno" was appropriate. But it all goes back to Parshas Zachor.

"Zachor es asher asah le'cha Amalek" - we are instructed to forever remember what Amalek did to us. This is not just an intellectual exercise in historical memory or national consciousness. The purpose is to fuel and sustain an emotional attitude of hatred; in the words of the Chayei Adam (section #53), we are obligated "lisno oso sinah kevuah b'lev" - not just to hate, but a gezuntah hatred.

While the fact is clear, the question remains: Why are we so adamantly opposed to Amalek? Why are we so obsessed with events that occurred thousands of years ago? And let's not forget, remembering is just part of the obligation. The other part is "timcheh es zecher Amalek" - we must obliterate any hint, any shemetz, of Amalek in the world.

Why are we so extreme?

R. Samson Raphael Hirsch (Shemos 17:14) has a remarkable insight which provides insight to this particular mitzvah, and may also shed light on the struggle the State of Israel is currently facing. R. Hirsch is struck by the fact that the verse focuses our destructive forces not on Amalek, per se, but on "zecher Amalek" - the memory of Amalek. He explains that in this subtlety lies the secret to understanding our extremist posture in this mitzvah. "It is not Amalek that is so pernicious for the moral culture of mankind," says R. Hirsch, "but zecher Amalek," which he understands to mean, broadly, "the glorifyingof the memory of Amalek." That is the danger.

In other words, our concern is not so much with their actions as it is with the historical judgment that is "handed down" against these actions. Our obligation is to make sure that the actions of Amalek are utterly discredited and consigned to the "ash heap of history." However, continues R. Hirsch, if that does not happen, if "each successive generation looks up in worship to these 'great ones' of violence and force," then their evil will multiply as "their memory will awaken the desire [in others] to emulate these heroes and acquire equal glory by equal violence and force."

Amalek serves as a paradigm for evil in the world and "Zechiras Amalek" is the model for our attitude towards such evil; it's not just a recollection of a past event but, more importantly, a guide for preventing future embodiments of Amalek.

Unfortunately, throughout Israel's wars with her Arab neighbors, as well as in the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, we have witnessed numerous instances of the exact opposite attitude towards murder and mayhem. The root of the evil is not the terrorist atrocities themselves, but the celebration of murder and culture of death from which these atrocities have emerged. Until there comes a time, and we hope that time comes soon, where peace will reign in Israel for all people, we must realize that we have a responsibility. Not only a militarily responsibility to defend our land and people, but perhaps more importantly, Parshas Zachor teaches us that we have an educational responsibility to speak with a moral clarity that makes clear that acts of terror are inexcusable and evil incarnate.