Beshalach, Shemos 17:16. Remembering Amalek During Davening.

For Jan, of New Jersey, I will try to provide a brief summary in English of the paragraphs I cite.

The mitzva to remember the lasting damage caused by Amalek, and our hope that what they did will one day be reversed, occurs in several places in our tefilla, but one might daven his whole life and not realize what he is saying.

The passuk says ויאמר כי יד על כס י-ה מלחמה לד' בעמלק מדר דר

Rashi:

כי יד על כס יה: ידו של הקב"ה הורמה לישבע בכסאו להיות לו מלחמה ואיבה בעמלק עולמית, ומהו כס, ולא נאמר כסא, ואף השם נחלק לחציו, נשבע הקב"ה שאין שמו שלם ואין כסאו שלם עד שימחה שמו של עמלק כולו, וכשימחה שמו יהיה השם שלם והכסא שלם, שנאמר (תהלים ט ז) האויב תמו חרבות לנצח, זהו עמלק שכתוב בו (עמוס א יא) ועברתו שמרה נצח, (תהלים שם) וערים נתשת אבד זכרם המה, מהו אומר אחריו (תהלים ט ח) וה' לעולם ישב, הרי השם שלם, (תהלים שם) כונן למשפט כסאו, הרי כסאו שלם:

For there is a hand on the throne of the Eternal:  כִּי-יָד עַל כֵּס יָ-הּ. The hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, was raised to swear by His throne, to have a war and [bear] hatred against Amalek for eternity. Now what is the meaning of כֵּס [as opposed to כִּסֵא and also [why is] the Divine Name divided in half? [I.e., why is the Name יָ-הּ used instead of י-ה-ו-ה ?] [The answer is that] the Holy One, blessed be He, swore that His Name will not be complete and His throne will not be complete until the name of Amalek is completely obliterated. And when his name is obliterated, the Divine Name will be complete, and the throne will be complete....., as it is said: “The enemy has been destroyed; swords exist forever (לָנֶצַח)” (Ps. 9:7); this [who they are referring to] is Amalek, about whom it is written: “and kept their fury forever (נֶצַח)” (Amos 1:11). "And You have uprooted the cities-their remembrance is lost" (Ps. 9:7) [i.e., Amalek’s obliteration]. What does it say afterwards? “And the Lord (וַיהוה) shall sit forever” (Ps. 9:8); thus [after Amalek is obliterated] the Name is complete. "He has established His throne (כִּסְאוֹ) for judgment" (Ps. 9:8). Thus the throne is complete [i.e., thus the throne, here spelled with an “aleph,” is now complete]. — [from Midrash Tanchuma Ki Seitzei]                

According to Rashi, the three letters which are lacking from Hashem’s Name and throne are א, ו, and ה, which can be rearranged to spell the word הוא. In other words, our verse teaches that Hashem has declared a war against Amalek in every generation. When this is finally won, the letters in the word הוא will be returned to their rightful places, at which time His Name and Throne will be restored to their complete glory and His kingship will be permanently established.

The sefer Avnei Shoham (and others) uses Rashi to reveal the meaning of words we say every day in davening.  After Krias Shama, we say לדור ודור הוא קים ושמו קים וכסאו נכון ומלכותו ואמונתו לעד קימת.  "For generation after generation (Le'dor va'dor), He (Hu) is established and His Name is established and His Throne (Kis'o) is firmly set and His kingdom and faithfulness is forever established.   In light of our passuk and Rashi, we see that the words לדור ודור echo the words  מדר דר– in our passuk, and that the words הוא קים mean that the letters in the word הוא, which have been diminished in our world, will be returned to their rightful places. After these letters are restored, we will see that שמו קים וכסאו נכון – Hashem’s name and throne are established and lasting, and מלכותו ואמונתו לעד קימת – His kingdom and faithfulness will be permanent and endure forever.


A reference in Kaddish:
From Sefer HaPardes/Rashi:

בס׳ הפרדס לרש״י  פי׳ קדיש. יתגדל ויתקדש כוי,והאיך יכול להתגדל שמו של הקב׳׳ה, שמא חס ושלום כביכול חסר הוא, אין וודאי חסר הוא, כדכתיב כי יד על כס יה,נשבע הקב׳׳ה שלא יהי׳ הכסא שלם עד שימחה זכר עמלק. וכן מצינו שמו ה׳, וכשהוא אומר כס יה אינו אלא חצי ה׳ באותיות, וכמו כן קורא לכסא כס, הרי שהן חסרין אותיות, לכך אגו מתפללים יתגדל ויתקדש, כלומר יהי רצון מלפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שיגאלנו מבין האומות וימחה את זכר עמלק ויתקדש שמו להיות שלם

In Kaddish, we say "May the infinite Name be made great and sanctified...."  But is Hashem's name in need of being made great?  Yes, it is, because after the attach of Amalek Hashem swore that His Name and His Throne are not entire until the effect of Amalek is erased.  When it says Keis Kah, Kah is only half of the letters of Hashem's name, and Keis is half the letters of Kisei.  We pray that they should be made entire, meaning, that He should redeem us from our exile and erase the name of Amalek and then His Name will be holy and entire.

Tosfos Brachos 3a brings a corollary thought from the Machzor Vitri (written by Rav Simcha of Vitri, a pupil of Rashi) which explains that the congregational response to Yisgadal in kaddish, Yehei Shmei Rabba, is also a reference to this mitzva:

 ועונין יהא שמיה הגדול מבורך, מכאן יש לפתור מה שפי׳ במחזור ויטרי יהא שמיה רבה, שזו תפלה שאנו מתפללין שימלא שמו, כדכחיב כי יד על כס יה, שלא יהא שמו שלם וכסאו שלם עד שימחה זרעו של עמלק, ופירושו כך: יהא שמי׳׳ה שם יה רבא, כלומר שאנו מתפללין שיהא שמו גדול ושלם, ומבורך לעולם הוי תפלה אחרת, כלומד ומבורך לעולם הבא. וזה לא נראה, מדקאמר הכא יהא שמיה הגדול מבורך משמע דתפלה אחת היא, ואינו רוצה לומר שיהא שמו גדול ושלם, אלא יהא שמו הגדול מבורך

Tosfos quotes the Machzor Vitri as saying that the response in Kaddish, Yehei Shmei Rabbah, is a prayer that Hashem's name be made whole, and the interpretation is as follows:  The word Shmeih in Yehei Shmeih is a compound of Shem Yud Hei, which means the Name comprising the letters Yud and Hei; Rabba, may it be made whole again.  The word Mevorach that follows begins another thought.  Tosfos disagrees with this interpretation.



--A reference at the end of Davening:  (guest emendation)
This is also reflected directly in the pasuk we say at the end of Aleinu- ביום ההוא יהיה ה' אחד ושמו אחד: i.e., on the day when the הוא is restored and the Name of Hashem is complete.  On a deeper level, see the sugya Pesachim  50a on " אטו האידנא לאו אחד הוא ?"  Note carefully the reference in that gemara to וזה זכרי לדר דר and the obvious connection to the parasha of Amalek --

Parshas Zachor and מצוות מחיית עמלק

I am putting several interesting things about this week's mitzvah in this post.  I will occasionally add to the post  as new ideas come up.

I
This week is Parshas Zachor, and the Haftorah is Shmuel I:15, which begins like this:
ויאמר שמואל אל שאול אתי שלח ה' למשחך למלך על עמו על ישראל ועתה שמע לקול דברי ה'צבאות פקדתי את אשר עשה עמלק לישראל אשר שם לו בדרך בעלתו ממצריםעתה לך והכיתה את עמלק והחרמתם את כל אשר לו
Some people begin reading from the first passuk, and others begin from the second passuk, like so:

ספרדים ואיטלקים: ויאמר שמואל אל שאול אתי שלח 

אשכנזים: כה אמר ה' צבאות פקדתי

This seems like a pretty trivial difference, but it happens to reflect a Machlokes between the Rambam/Ramban and the Chinuch.  

According to the Oneg Yomtov, the Rambam holds that the Mitzva of Mechiyas Amalek only pertains to the Melech.  The Mitzva only begins when there is a king, and as soon as there is no king, the mitzva of Mechiyas Amaleik immediately ends.  Here is the Oneg Yomtov (in letter Vov):

 אנו רואין דאין מקום למצות מחיית עמלק אלא כשיש מלך בישראל * ובארנו בזה מה שהשיב שאול לשמואל כששב  מהמלחמה  ושמואל אמר לו מדוע  בזית  את  דבר  ה'  על מה שהחי׳ את אננ ולקח מהשלל • והשיב כי יראתי את העם ואשמע בקולם ונראה שטענת תשובתו הזאת • דאמרינן ביומא (לף כ״ב) וירב בנחל על עסקי נחל מה על נפש אחת

 אמרה תורה הבא עגלה ערופה על כמה נפשות על אחת כמה וכמה ואם אדם חטא בהמה מה חטאה ואס גדולים  חטאו קטנים מה חטאו ע ״ש  גמרא ־ ומנטייתו זאת לצד החמלה היתה עצתו לפרק מעליו כח המלוכה׳ ואף דקיי״ל מלך שמחל על כבודו  אין כבודו מחול • היינו היכא שמחזק בעיקר מלכותו רק שרצה עתה למחול להאיש שמרד בו ־ אבל שאול רצה להשפיל  עצמו מעיקר מלכותו • וכיון שאינו מחזיק  עצמו למלך ממלא בטל דין מחיית  עמלק כמו שבארנו דבלא מלך ליכא מצות   מחיית עמלק 

The Ramban on Shemos 17:16 says pretty much the same thing:

כאשר יהיה מלך בישראל יושב על כסא ה' ילחם בעמלק, והוא רמז לשאול המלך הראשון, וכן מדר דר, לאמר כי כל מלך בישראל חייב להלחם בהם עד שימחו. וגם זה מדרש הגמרא שאמרו (סנהדרין כ ב): כשהוא אומר כי יד על כס יה מלחמה לה' בעמלק מדר דר, הרי להעמיד עליהם מלך תחלה, ואין כס יה אלא מלך, שנאמר (דהי"א כט כג): וישב שלמה, כדאיתא בפרק כהן גדול.

The Chinuch, on the other hand, holds that although the Gemara in Sanhedrin requires that we anoint a king before we attack Amalek, the mitzva is triggered as soon as a king has been appointed, and the mitzva remains in effect forever, with or without a king, and is incumbent upon every individual in Klal Yisrael.  Or you could read it to mean that there is an ikkar mitzva and a non-ikkar mitzva, but even the non-ikkar mitzva is a mitzva, like Bilah by a Korban Mincha.  The Chinuch is in Mitzva 604 (some older editions don't have all the words of the Chinuch):

ואף שעיקר מצוות מחיית עמלק מוטלת על הציבור, מכל מקום גם על כל יחיד ויחיד מישראל מוטלת מצווה זו, ואם הזדמן לפניו עמלקי ויש בכוחו להורגו, ולא הרגו, ביטל את המצווה

So  if you hold like the Rambam, you have to begin the Haftorah with the first passuk that says that Shaul was anointed king, because without a king, there is no mitzva.  In fact, the Rambam in 1 Melachim 2 brings this passuk to prove that appointing a king precedes mechiyas Amalek- מינוי מלך קודם למלחמת עמלק. שנאמר אותי שלח ה' למשחך למלך עתה לך והכיתה את עמלק.  But according to the Chinuch, having a king no longer matters, and the mitzva pertains with or without a king. Therefore the haftorah should begin with the second passuk, which directly addresses the Inyana de'Yoma.

I am aware of the Rambam that also says that every individual is over a lav if he refrains (5 Melachim 4,5- מצות עשה להחרים שבעה עממין שנאמר החרם תחרימם. וכל שבא לידו אחד מהן ולא הרגו עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר לא תחיה כל נשמה. וכבר אבד זכרם: וכן מצות עשה לאבד זכר עמלק. שנאמר תמחה את זכר עמלק,) and I agree that it is very possible that all the Rishonim basically agree that the Mitzva is on the Tzibur and it devolves from the Tzibur to its component yechidim.  But I am working with the Oneg Yomtov, and according to the Oneg Yomtov there is a very big difference between the Rambam and the Chinuch.  Also, the Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvos after Asei 248 says

אם תתבונן בכלל המצוות האלה, שקדם זכרן, תמצא מהן-מצוות שהן חובה לצבור לא לכל יחיד ויחיד, כגון: בנין בית הבחירה והקמת מלך והכרתת זרע עמלק .ומהן מצוות שהן חובה ליחיד, אם עשה מעשה פלוני או אם ארע לו מצב פלוני, כגון קורבן שוגג וקורבן הזב, ואפשר שישאר אדם כל ימי חייו ולא יעשה אותו המעשה ולא יארע לו אותו הדבר.

so it is very possible that when the Rambam in Halacha 5 in Melachim says וכן מצות עשה לאבד זכר עמלק, his וכן is not referring to the obligation on individuals.

In any case, please remember that it doesn't really matter what the Rambam and the Chinuch REALLY AND TRULY IN THEIR HEART OF HEARTS held, or what YOU think the Rambam and the Chinuch hold, or what THE ROV AND THE RAV said the Rambam and the Chinuch hold.  What matters is that THERE ARE PEOPLE (such as the Oneg Yomtov and I) who hold there is a basic machlokes between the Rambam and the Chinuch as to whether individuals acting as individuals have any mitzva of Mechiyas Amaleik, or only when acting under a king's command is there a mitzva, and it is because of that difference of opinion that two minhagim arose as to where to begin the Haftorah.

II
The Magen Avraham in OC 60 SK 2 brings from the אר״י ז״ל in the Kavanos that there are Zechiros, things that we should remember, and that they are listed in the Bracha before Krias Shma, in Ahava Rabba.  You might know it as Ahavas Olam.  In any case, many of us are not aware of this subtext, so here's the Magen Avraham.

איתא בכוונות ובכתבים והזכירות הללו הם מ"ע לכן

• כשיאמר ובנו בחרת יזכור מ"ת, 
• וקרבתנו מעמד הר סיני, 
• לשמך הגדול מעשה עמלק שאין השם שלם, 
• להודות לך הפה לא נברא רק להודות ולא לדבר לשון הרע וזהו זכירת מעשה מרים, 
• וזכרתם את כל מצות ה' זהו שבת ששקולה כנגד כל המצות

וכשאומר והביאנו לשלום מארבע כנפות הארץ יניח הכנפות של הטלית שעל כתפיו ליפול למטה עכ"ל, ובילקוט פ' בחקותי מביא ג"כ זכור את אשר הקצפת את ה' אלהיך במדבר וגו' זכור בפה ע"ש בשם ספרי ונ"ל שיזכור זה כשיאמר באהבה לאפוקי באותו פעם לא היו אוהבין השם וצריך טעם למה תקנו לקרות פ' עמלק מה שלא תקנו בזכירות אחרים עססי' תרפ"ה וי"ל דמ"ת יש לנו חג עצרת וה"ה שבת ומעשה מרים ומעשה עגל לא תקנו מפני שהי' גנותן של ישראל:

It's worth noting that the Chida in Dvash L'Fee says that while it's true that you're not yotzei Zechira, because you need to read it from a Sefer Torah, but at least you're avoiding the lahv of Lo Sishkach.

And here is what the Aruch Hashulchan says about this, so you shouldn't feel bad if you never did what the Magen Avraham recommended:

נכון הוא שכשיאמר "ובנו בחרת..." לזכור מעמד הר סיני, שאז בחר בנו, כדכתיב: "פן תשכח את הדברים... יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב".

וכשיאמר "לשמך הגדול" יזכור מעשה עמלק, דאין השם שלם עד שימחה זרעו של עמלק, וכדכתיב: "זכור את אשר עשה לך...".

וכשיאמר "להודות לך" יזכור שהפה נברא להודות לו יתברך, ולא לדבר לשון הרע. ויזכור מעשה מרים, כדכתיב: "זכור את אשר עשה ה' אלהיך למרים...".

וכשיאמר "באהבה" יזכור על מה דכתיב: "זכור את אשר הקצפת את ה' אלהיך במדבר".

וכשיאמר "וזכרתם את כל מצות ה'" יזכור על שבת שקולה כנגד כל המצות, וכדכתיב: "זכור את יום השבת". כלומר: שלעולם תזכור יום השבת. וכמאמרם ז"ל: מחד בשבתא לשבתא. ולכן בשיר של יום אנו אומרים: "היום יום ראשון בשבת...".

וכשיאמר "מארבע כנפות הארץ" – יניח כנפי הטלית שעל כתפיו לפול למטה.

(מגן אברהם סעיף קטן ב'. ואנו אין חוששין לזה. ועיין בפרי עץ חיים שער הקריאת שמע פרק שלישי, ותבין על מה שאין נוהגין כן. ודייק ותמצא קל.)

The only thing is, that the Aruch Hashulchan says that if you look at Reb  Chaim Vital's Pri Etz Chaim, you''ll find it easy to understand why we're not noheig to do these zechiros.  I looked there, and I still don't have any idea of what he's talking about.  Maybe you'll have better luck than me.  Here it is.

UPDATE: Thank you to the Anonymous commenter who explained that the Aruch Hashulchan is talking about the minhag to drop the tzitzis after saying "מארבע כנפות הארץ", and it has nothing to do with the Zechiros.

III
There are many opinions about what the chiyuv of zechira from a sefer entails.  In the Maaseh Rav, the Gaon is said to have layned himself, and most people understand this to be because Miztva bo yoser mibishlucho.  In the Sefer Yeshodei Yeshurun, by Rabbi Felder, who can be trusted, he says that Reb Moshe's shitta was that you are yotzei by hearing it being read, and not because of shlichus or shomei'a k'oneh, but simply because the whole chiyuv is to hear it.  This is diametrically opposed to the Taz that holds that being yotzei the Bracha of Krias Hatorah is essential to being yotzei the mitzva of Zechiras Mechiyas Amalek.

IV
We are all familiar with the Brisker chiddush that the definition of Amalek regarding the Mitzva of Mechiyah is not specific to the ethnic group that descended from Eliphaz, but includes every person that wants to destroy Klal Yisrael.  In the US, people say it from the Rav in the name of his father, but Rav Shternbuch in Teshuvos V'Hanhagos says it in the name of Reb Chaim.  What I found more interesting is the appellation Amalek for divisive Jews in the Even Shleimah from the Gaon, here:

  ה' מיני ערב רב יש בישראל . א) בעלי מחלוקת ולשון חרע  ב) בעלי תאוה. ג) הצבועים שאין תוכם כברם ד)  הרודפים

 אחד הכבוד לעשות להם שם.  ה) הרודפים אחר הממון. ובעלי מחלוקת הם גרועים מכולם והם נקראים עמלקים. ואין בן דוד בא עד שימחו מן העולם (דברם א׳ א׳) וכל מחלוקת שלא לשם שמים  הוא מע״ר הקופצים לתורות וליטול עטרה.  כמ״ש ונעשה לנו שם

(The Gaon notes the Tikkunei Zohar 46b, but it's a diyuk, not a quote.)


UPDATE, JULY 3 2015
V
I received the following comment from Harav Yehuda Oppenheimer, esteemed Principal of Bnos Bais Yaakov High School in Toronto. Regarding the difference of opinion between the Rambam and Sefer HaChinuch as to whether having a king is a prerequisite to the Mitzva of Mechiyas Amalek.

I’d just like to add that I think the Lomdus behind their opinions is as follows. Both Shitos agree that the Mitzva of Mechiyas Amalek is only applicable during a Milchama. As the Gri”z says in Beshalach, you need the “Din Milchama” to allow for the inevitable element of Sakanas Nefashos which an ordinary mitzva does not permit! Thus, according to the Rambam you need the king to “shaf a din Milchama”! No king = no Milchama = no Mitzva. The Chinuch, however, holds that the words: “Milchama LaHashem baAmalek Midor Dor” creates an eternal din Milchama with Amalek! This explains why by the 7 Umos the Chinuch writes that a Yachid is only Chayav if he can kill them without putting himself in Sakana, whereas by Amalek he says that there is a Mitzva on each Yachid without that caveat. Here it is a constant Shaas Milchama, which by definition requires Sakana. By the 7 Umos, however, it is merely a Mitzva, where Sakana renders one exempt. (Other than in those specific times when there was a Milchama with them).
(According to the Chinuch the Gemara that says that Minui Melech comes first is merely the order in which the Mitzvos should be done - it’s not a prerequisite to the Mitzva. Alternatively, it’s a Gezeiras Hakasuv that you can’t start Mechiyas Amalek before the first Minui Melech). 

Excellent, and Yasher Koach. 

Beshalach, Shemos 17:16. Amalek and Marriage

This is from the translation I did for Artscroll/Mesorah of Reb Moshe's journal, with some changes and an addition.

 וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי יָד עַל כֵּס קה מִלְחָמָה לַה' בַּעֲמָלֵק מִדֹּר דֹּר     

And He said, the hand is on G-d's throne: G-d will be at war with Amalek for all generations. 

The verse uses an abbreviated form of the Hebrew word for throne, כֵּס, and the two letter Name of Hashem, קה, rather than the full name.  Rashi explains that the abbreviated forms indicate that Hashems' Name and Throne are diminished so long as Amalek exists.  

ומהו כס, ולא נאמר כסא, ואף השם נחלק לחציו? נשבע הקב"ה שאין שמו שלם ואין כסאו שלם עד שימחה שמו של עמלק כולו, וכשימחה שמו יהיה השם שלם והכסא שלם

With this in mind, the Gemara in Sotah (17a) seems, at first, perplexing.  The Gemara says that Hashem placed the letter yud in the Hebrew word for "man" איש and the letter hei in the Hebrew word for 'woman' אשה so that the Name of Hashem (Yud and Hei) would be formed upon their union in marriage.  If Hashem desired that the union of husband and wife be graced with His Name, why would He choose the incomplete Two-Letter Name as the signature of His Presence?  

The answer is that while it is true that Hashem graces each Jewish couple with His Name, He provides only a foundation, upon which the couple must build a true Jewish home.  Hashem's contribution, while essential, is only a beginning.  It is only the good works of the couple that can complete the Name that is present in their home.  If they succeed in doing so, then true blessing will surely follow, as the passuk states in Shemos 20:21, בְּכָל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת-שְׁמִי אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ.  wherever I mention My Name, I shall come to you and bless you.  (here ends the slightly modified translation of Reb Moshe's dvar torah.)

A friend pointed out that the Name of G-d that is formed by the union of husband and wife is not a product of the letters aleph and shin, which they have in common.  It is a product of the letters yud and hei, the letters which they do not have in common.  Hashra'as Hashechina, the presence of the Shechina in a Jewish home, stems from harmony- the dynamic harmonizing of their differing emotions and thought processes and perspectives.  As the Aruch Hashulchan says in his introduction to his sefer (found in the beginning of Choshen Mishpat, which was the first volume that he published of the set.)

תפארת השיר כשהקולות משונים זה מזה וזהו עיקר הנעימות

The splendor of music is when the voices are different from each other, and that is the essence of its beauty.

Now, let's think about this a little more. 

What's the point of Reb Moshe's vort?

Does it really say anything at all?  Let's see.  It says that a nice peaceful house is good, but it's only a beginning, that the people need to do more, that Avodas Hashem never ends, that you have to build on a good foundation.  Is there any insight here, anything here at all that we didn't know?  Is it, chas veshalom, a platitude?

No, Reb Moshe never said platitudes.  His mind constantly worked on many levels, and careful attention to what he wrote and said revealed some of that thought process.  Here, Reb Moshe chose to emphasize the positive aspect of his observation - that if a person builds on the gift Hashem granted, then bracha will surely come to the house.  But he is teaching another implicit lesson here, and it's not a comfortable one.   The lesson is that a person who fails to take advantage of an opportunity, a person who rests on his laurels, a person who has achieved but can achieve more and fails to do so because he is lazy, that man is the brother of Amalek.  Whether passively diminishing by failing to do Hashem's work, or actively diminishing by doing wicked things - the result is the same.  This person is guilty of the same diminution of the Name of G-d as Amalek.  And this concept is expressed in Mishlei 18:9:

גַּם מִתְרַפֶּה בִמְלַאכְתּוֹ אָח הוּא לְבַעַל מַשְׁחִית

He, too, who is slack (weak) in his work is brother to the destroyer.

 As the Ramchal says in the Mesillas Yesharim on this passuk,

כי הנה העצל, אף על פי שאינו עושה רע בקום עשה, הנה הוא מביא את הרעה עליו בשב ואל תעש שלו. ואמר (שם יח, ט): "גם מתרפה במלאכתו אח הוא לבעל משחית" כי אף על פי שאינו המשחית העושה את הרעה בידיו, לא תחשב שהוא רחוק ממנו, אלא אחיו הוא ובן גילו הוא.

The lazy man, though not actively evil, produces evil through his very inactivity. We read further (Proverbs 18:9), "Also he who slackens in his work is a brother to the Destroyer." Though he is not the Destroyer who commits the evil with his own hands, let him not think that he is far-removed from him - he is his blood-brother.  (R' Aryeh Kaplan's translation)

So Reb Moshe's vort, properly understood, has a plangent resonance: A couple might say, our home is so pleasant and holy, why look outwards?  Why get involved in things outside of the house?  A person might say, "Look what I've achieved!  I've accomplished enough, I can relax, let others do the work."  These people need to know who is really talking.  That is the Amalek in our subconscious mind talking.  When you start thinking that way, remember that the mitzva of Mechiyas Amalek, the mitzva of restoring the Name and the Throne of Hashem, doesn't always involve taking a weapon in hand against 'the other'.

Beshalach, Shemos 17:8. Az Yashir and Amaleik

The Kli Yakar here cites the Mechilta as saying that Amaleik is allegorized to the fly. (The Baal Haturim here points out that the first letters of “zikoron basefer vesim be’oznei” are ‘zevuv.’) The Kli Yakar explains that the metaphoric use of “fly” alludes to an insect that does not have the ability to pierce the skin. It is only when the skin is broken that the fly can feed and generate all sorts of problems. “Hazevuv lahut achar hamakkoh, ” a fly is drawn to wounds. A fly cannot instigate a problem; it can only exploit and aggravate a problem. When a fly lands on you and walks around, the fly is thinking “Is death here yet?”

Similarly, Amalek cannot do anything when the spiritual integument of Klal Yisroel is intact. Only when there is a breach in our ruchnius, when the skin is not intact, can Amalek exploit that breach and attack us.

Amaleik and Safeik are each gematria 240. Amalek has been described as “korcho baderech,” which some interpret to mean a philosophy of mikreh- randomness and coincidence, the philosophy that denies divine justice and providence. When our faith is weak, when we doubt the existence of Hashgachas Hashem, Amaleik is empowered to exploit that breach. As Rashi says, it was only after we began to wonder “Hayeish Hashem bekirbeinu,” did Amaleik attack. They were attracted to the stench of spiritual decay.

Now let us move from the malodor of sin and faithlessness to the opposite. The Gemara (Shabbos 89a) says that the Malach Hamavves taught Moshe Rabeinu that Ketores has the power to stop a mageifah, to halt the Malach Hamaves. Additionally, Rashi says that the Angel of Amalek, the Sar of Amalek, is the Malach Hama'ves. The sefer Nifla’os Mi’torasecha by R’ Mordechai Aran notes that the word Amalek only appears twice in all of Tanach as a rosh teivos or a sof teivos of four consecutive words: once in order, once out of order.  Shemuel I 2:28 על מזבחי להקטיר קטורת “Al Mizbechi Le’haktir Ketores”, and Bamidbar 16:6 where the Adas Korach was instructed זאת עשו קחו לכם מחתות  “zos Ahsu Kechu Lachem Machtos”. Both of these references involve the bringing of ketores. Imagine that! In all of Tanach, only these two phrases have consecutive words beginning or ending with the letters AMLK, and both explicitly refer to the Ketores! Both phrases discuss the sweet smell of ketores, and both contain singular references to the Amalek, to the rot of death.  The Torah locks together the polar opposites; Good and Evil, Kiddush Hashem and Chillul Hashem; the two primal antagonists in the eternal play of existence.

The antidote to the death-power of Amalek is the sweet smell of the ketores, which symbolizes the life-power of strong emunah and mitzvos done with joy.  As the Prophet Nechemiah told the Jewish people (Nechemiah 8:10)

  ויאמר נחמיה הוא התרשתא ועזרא הכהן הספר והלוים המבינים את העם לכל העם היום קדש הוא לה' אלקיכם אל תתאבלו ואל תבכו  כי בוכים כל העם כשמעם את דברי התורה.   ויאמר להם לכו אכלו משמנים ושתו ממתקים ושלחו מנות לאין נכון לו כי קדוש היום לאדנינו ואל תעצבו כי חדות ה' היא מעזכם.

This parshah contains Oz Yoshir, the eponym of Shabbas Shira. Shira corresponds to ketores, as we find (Tehillim 141:2) “Tikon tefillasi ketores lefanecha.” This is reflected in the placement of the amud of the chazon in shul in a position that parallels the mizbeyach hazahav of the Beis Hamikdosh, which was used for burning ketores. Az Yashir is preceeded by "Va'ya'aminu BaHashem." When the Torah begins the shira, it uses the words ‘Az Yashir,’ not 'Az Shar.' Rashi explains (briefly, because it’s a dikduk Rashi) that Yashir is lashon assid, and Chazal darshan accordingly, but the pashut pshat is that sometimes lashon assid is used to say that “he was moved to...”, so the passuk means “Then, having experienced the miracle, Moshe and the Bnei Yisroel were inspired to sing, and they said...” The question is , why the three step introduction? 1; experienced miracle, 2. their hearts were moved to sing, and 3. they sang (or, Revelation, Exultation, Exaltation.) Why not just say that in response to the miracle, they sang? What does the extra step— “their hearts were moved to sing”— add? The answer is that shira is not just singing, it is song that comes from the heart. Mere chazanus is empty. Shira means song that comes from inspiration, from the heart, from the elevation generated by the awareness of Hashem’s loving presence.

So we see in this parsha, the Torah is really showing us a dichotomy, a contrast, a spectrum defined by, on the one hand, Shira, and on the other, Amalek. When Bnei Yisrael came to “Vaya’aminu Bashem uvemoshe avdo,” then “Oz Yoshir.” When Bnei Yisroel wondered “Hayeish Hashem bekirbeinu im oyin,” then “Vayavo Amalek.” Emunah brings shirah, which is like the ketores. Safeik brings Amalek.

The presence of Az Yashir and Amalek in this parsha is not coincidental. Just as we saw that in all of Tanach, only two pesukim contain the letters of Amalek, and both discuss the Ketores, here, too, the parsha that introduces Amalek precedes that story with Az Yashir, the antidote to Amalek. Once again, Ketores and Amalek face one another.

It was pointed out to me that this can be viewed as “Creating Your Own Reality.” In other words, when they doubted Hashem’s hashgocho and didn’t feel confident that they were safe, they were attacked; when they were confident that Hashem was protecting them, they were protected. This is like the Brisker story of “Ein Ohd Milvado” and R’ Chaninah ben Dosah. See also R Chaim Shmuelevitz in Sichos Mussor #35 and 64, who says that our beliefs create all of our realities, even to the extent that our beliefs contribute to the power of objects to cause us harm, as he brings from R Ami’s story of the Chuldoh and the Bohr in Taanis 8a.

Briefly: Amaleik=Zevuv. Zevuv is attracted to the smell of physical decay that comes from the wounds which allow it to feed and spawn and proliferate. Amaleik is empowered by and attracted to the metaphysical odor of spiritual decay--sin and failure of faith. The polar opposite of Amaleik/Zevuv is the fragrant Ketores. Ketores=Shir. Therefore, Shir is the opposite of Amalek. Shir expresses the exultation of faith and good works. Parshas Beshalach, which contains both Az Yashir and the Parsha of Amaleik, spans the two defining extremes of spiritual life: the state of Emunah and Shir, and the state of Safeik and Amaleik.

My son, in a drasha at his shul, expanded this with an insight that gives this genuine relevance to our lives. What follows is his.

We find that Parshas Ha'azinu contains many strongly worded criticisms of Klal Yisrael and warnings of dangerous and difficult times. Why, then, is it called a Shirah? Is the prophecy of Yirmiahu known as a Shira? Certainly not. So in what sense is Ha'azinu a Shirah? The answer is that Haazinu is a global perspective. It is only for us, who are handicapped by our imperfect understanding of the present and forgetfulness or unawareness of the past, that suffering is so emotionally painful and confusing. But with the global view of Shechina Medaberes Mitoch Grono shel Moshe, with a perfectly understood panorama of the past, the present, and the future, all things fall into place: U're'isem es achorai, ufanai lo yei'ra'u!" Life is experienced forward, but only understood backward. You cannot comprehend what you see because you simply are unaware of the factors that contributed to it or of the ultimate purpose of what you experience; we occupy a thin slice of dim light between endless expanses of darkness. When you finally are granted understanding, after all is done and the goal is acheived, then you will see that all of life is a Shirah, including the Chelbana. Reb Tzadok Hacohen of Lublin once said (in parshas Korach) that Chelbana comprises the letter Ches, which stands for Choshech, darkness, and the rest of the word is Levana, white, or light. Chelbana, the element of ketores that is foul smelling, symbolizes our narrow awareness-- light bound into darkness. But in the ketores, the Chelbana itself combines with all the other ingredients to create a supernally sweet fragrance.

The Beis Halevi in this week's parsha notes the Medrash that Moshe Rabbeinu said "with the word 'Az' I sinned, when I said "u'mei'az basi el Pharaoh," and with the word Az I now say Shira-- Az yashir Moshe. The Beis Halevi explains that now that Moshe saw the denoument of Yetzias Mitzrayim, he realized that not only should he say Shira on the Geula, but that he ought to say Shira on the suffering of the Jews in Mitzrayim.

It is Amalek, or the Amalek within us, that sees the suffering of innocents, the brutish indifference of nature, and says "the is no justice in life." They say that all is Mikreh, randomness, a black abyss of meaninglessness.

We, on the other hand, we say Shira. We know that everything happens for a reason, that Hashem loves mankind and that Hashem loves the Jewish people with a chiba ye'seirah, and we know that ultimately we will have a glimmer of understanding of the whole play of history. And that is the perspective that we express in Shira. Just as Moshe said Shira when the story of Mitzrayim reached its end, we say Shira too, in perfect faith in Hashem's justice and love.

What a great pity it is when people who suffer fall into despair or into sullen frustration. They give up, or they take it out on their friends and family, or they simply become emotionally unsupportive and distant. It is a pity because these people themselves will ultimately realize that they missed an opportunity to say Shira. They should have been saying Shira, and saying Shira itself would have lifted their spirits!

Shira does not have to be a song, it doesn't have to have notes or lyrics. Shira is when a person comes home from a hard day, and he knows that his job is on the line, and that he made bad investment decisions, and the first thing he does when he comes home is to make sure his family knows how much he loves them and how grateful he is that he has his family to return to. That is the truest form of Shira. Let's not wait for Biyas Hamashiach to sing Shira. Let us learn that to not say Shira is a Zeicher of Amalek, and we must eradicate Zecher Amalek. Let us re-learn what emuna and bitachon are all about, and we will say Shira every day of our life.

When I posted an earlier version of this two years ago, there were two comments:
One, anonymous, pointed out that Shiras Miriam begins with the Present Tense, implying that Women can percieve the Yad Hashem in miracles more quickly than men. The other, calling himself Furbo, put in a link to a gematriya and Bible Code engine, http://www.bible-code-depths.com.
Someone else asked for the source of there being ten shiros in Tanach. The sources are Yalkut Shimoni Yehoshua19:2, Mechilat Vayishlach 15:1, and Shir Hashirim Rabba 6:10.)  The Targum in the beginning of Shir Hashirim says that in Tanach you only find nine, and we will sing the tenth when Mashiach comes.

For a discussion about the heightened significance attributed to the sense of smell in Talmudic literature, and some insight into why smell is the most appropriate metaphor, please see http://havolim.blogspot.com/2008/08/shoftim-devarim-1618-shoftim-veshotrim.html

A salute to the Kli Yakar: I believe his Yahrtzeit is around now. In any other generation, he would have been the Gadol Hador in Drush. He, however, had the misfortune of living next door to the Maharal.

Va'eira, Shemos 9:24. Fire and Ice

Parts of this are based on the Sfas Emes here from year reish lamed hei.

The Gemora in the fifth perek of Brachos says that “afilu nachash karuch ahl akeivo eino mafsik b’tfilah. Akrav, mafsik.” If one finds a snake coiled around his ankle as he recites the Amida, the Shmoneh Esrei, he may not interrupt his davenning. If, on the other hand, he finds a scorpion, he should immediately stop. The Gemara says that a snake can be calmed by rhythmic movement, but an akrav is an immediate danger.

The Sfas Emes brings from a sefer “Ohr Yisrael” from the Rav Hamagid (I don’t know who he is referring to– The mefareish haRambam or someone else) that a snake kills by overheating the victim, while a scorpion kills by chilling him. (This is also stated in the Marsha in Brachos on 57b D’H “The tail of Akrav is in Nehar Dinor.”) The deeper meaning in Chazal's symbols is that there are two things that interfere with a person’s growth in ruchnius. One is the aveiros of heat, of passion, of the tayvos. That type of aveira is terrible, but a person can have a relationship with Hashem despite them, and can grow and overcome those aveiros. The other type is the aveiro of cold, of kerirus, of apathy, of not feeling that a relationship with Hashem is important, of not having hislahavus in avodas Hashem. That aveira does not seem so terrible. It is merely a sin of omission, it is just the sin of being indifferent, of being cool. But that sin is an absolute impediment to spiritual growth. This k’rirus is the beginning of leitzanus, of indifference, of treating Torah and Mitzvos as if they were trivial, mere distractions. If a person has the aveiros of heat, of taivos, he is not mafsik from t’filla, he is still capable of growth in has relationship with Hashem. But if he is cold, his tfilla is meaningless, he might as well stop davenning.

These two destructive possibilities are symbolized in Makkas Borod. Makkas Borod was when Hashem rained down on Mitzrayim two destructive elements, fire and ice. Both are destructive, and both threaten life. But Chazal are telling us that ice is worse than fire. (So the answer to Robert Frost’s question is, “Ice.”)

Every nation has a national symbol. Russia is the Bear, America the Eagle. What was the symbol of Egypt? If you remember Tutankhamen’s sarcophagus, you will remember his shel rosh, the Uraeus, the serpent in middle of his crown. The symbol of Egypt was the snake, the serpent. This is also alluded to in the Haftorah, where Pharaoh is called the great serpent lying in the Nile. Egypt was the zenith, or the nadir, of the aveiros of heat, the aveiros of the Bnei Chom. Amolek, on the other hand, is the one “asher Karcha baderech.” Amalek represents the aveira of k’rirus, and the symbol of Amalek is the Akrov. The Torah says "Asher Karcha Baderech." Literally, Karcha means 'ambushed you'. But Karcha also means 'cooled you.' (Note: The Sfas Emes doesn’t say this with certitude. He says “efsher” that Amalek is the Akrav. And the fact that the Gaon, cited later, also doesn’t have any such reference, indicates that the Sfas Emes’es use of Akrov as Amolek is a novelty without any explicit support in Chazal.) The aveira of Mitzrayim can be overcome. The aveira of Amaleik is much more dangerous. It may seem innocuous, but in fact it can be a greater problem.

There is a sefer called Mima’amkim from Mandlebaum from Har Nof, and in Shemos ma’amar 39, p. 396, he brings a bunch of the Gra’s torah explaining the concept of akrav and nochosh, including on Brachos 32 about being mafsik in T’filla. Regarding Nachash, the Gaon says like the Sfas Emes, that Nachash means aveiros of taiva. He explains Akrav as meaning Avodah Zarah, and he explains the gemara exactly like the Sfas Emes, that once a person has machshavos of Avodah Zarah, his tfilla is a waste of time, because in Avodah Zarah machshavah is mitztareif to maiseh, but other aveiros, even b’po’eil, he doesn’t have a din mummar l’chol hatorah, so his t’filla is still t’filla. The mar’ei makom are: Tikkunei Zohar 185:72, 59:3, 421:52:71 (I’m not sure whether the last letters mean 71 or omud alef), Mishlei 17:11 (where he just says that nochosh means mirmoh and akrov means rah), and Reiah Mehemna Vayikra gimmel ayin beis. (Thank you, Anonymous, for the mar'eh mokom.)

Eric Hoffer once observed that "The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."