English translation — תצא ב

A.

At the conclusion of our portion, Rashi cites "You shall blot out the memory of Amalek" and explains: "from man to woman, from infant to suckling, from ox to sheep<sup>1</sup>

so that the name of Amalek should not be mentioned even regarding an animal, to say this animal is from Amalek's property"<sup>2</sup>.

At first glance - Rashi comes to inform us that the blotting out of the memory of Amalek means

(not only the killing of the people of Amalek,

also the destruction of the animal.

And he is compelled in the plain meaning of Scripture - for if not so, behold the name of Amalek is remembered

(regarding the animal).

And furthermore, people are not "the memory of Amalek" but Amalek itself.

And tz"l: What is generally difficult in the words "you shall blot out the memory of Amalek" that Rashi needed to explain them<sup>3</sup>?

And if we say that Rashi explains

(not the explanation of the words in the verse,

but)

but)

the truth of the matter how is the blotting out of the memory of Amalek - it would have been appropriate to explain this above in Parshat Beshalach<sup>4</sup>

where it is said "I will blot out the memory of Amalek",

and since Rashi did not explain anything the first time,

it is proven that both the explanation of the words and the

manner of blotting out the memory of Amalek is understood and simple even to a five-year-old studying Scripture - and so why did Rashi need to explain it here<sup>5</sup>.

There is additionally to be precise in the words of Rashi:

a)

Since Rashi's innovation here is that the erasing of the memory of Amalek is "even upon the animal" — why

(copyist from what is written in Samuel⁶

and)

writes also "from man to woman, from infant to suckling"⁷.

b)

Why did Rashi not also bring the end of the verse "from camel to donkey"⁷,

since they too are "the seed of Amalek",

and are not included in "from ox to sheep",

as is proven from the verse in Samuel that enumerates them separately⁸.

c)

"From man to etc. sheep" is a verse,

(as above),

and nevertheless Rashi did not write,

as is his way everywhere, "as it is written",

or the like.

d)

After Rashi explains "that the name of Amalek should not be mentioned even on the animal,"

he adds "to say this animal etc." - and seemingly it is a redundancy.

e)

At the beginning of his commentary Rashi also copies the words "you shall blot out the" - and he did not intend to explain except what is "the remembrance of Amalek."

2.

And the explanation of this:

In the command of "you shall blot out the memory of Amalek," it is difficult in simple understanding: "the memory of Amalek" means the remembrance of Amalek; and the command "you shall blot out the memory of Amalek" is to blot out the remembrance of Amalek from the place of memory, namely from a person's thought and heart.

And it is understood: How is a command applicable to blot out "the memory of Amalek" from one's thought,

and it should have said "the memory of Amalek shall not be upon your heart" or "you shall remove from your heart" and the like,

namely that he should not think about Amalek willingly,

but he is not "in control" of his thought that he should not "fall" into the thought of "the memory of Amalek,"

And regarding the Sages, may their memory be for a blessing*<sup>8</sup>

Three transgressions a person is not saved from them daily: sinful thought, etc.

And on the contrary: when he is reminded of the command, this itself reminds him of Amalek.

Granted, in parshas Beshalach it is said "for I will surely blot out the memory of Amalek" — that the Holy One, blessed be He, will blot out the memory of Amalek.

the Holy One, blessed be He

(Who is all-powerful)

promises that He will blot out and cause to be forgotten the memory of Amalek from the mind and heart of human beings⁹.

But in our parshah, where the command is to the children of Israel — "you shall blot out

the memory of Amalek,"

it is difficult,

as above,

how can a human being blot out a memory that is in his mind and in the mind of all human beings who are "under the heavens"?

And this comes Rashi to explain and clarify: the commandment is not about erasing the memory of Amalek from the thought of man,

but rather — to erase all the things that mention the name of Amalek¹⁰

: "from ox to sheep so that the name of Amalek should not be mentioned even on the animal to say this animal was from Amalek",

by which

(and in a manner automatically)

will be forgotten eventually*¹⁰

the memory of Amalek also from his thought and heart of man¹¹.

3.

And according to the above,

that Rashi goes down to explain the word and concept of "remember

(Amalek)

that is the content of the commandment about erasing the memory

(and not only to inform us an additional detail in the memory of Amalek

(that it includes also animal),

as it seems apparently from the inclusiveness of his language of Rashi),

it is understood what he writes also

(the beginning of the verse)

"from man to etc.":

In the war of Midian in which they were commanded "avenge the vengeance of Bnei Yisrael from the Midianites"<sup>12</sup>,

it is said about it "all the children among the women etc. keep alive for yourselves"<sup>13</sup>.

Also regarding the "woman" in this it is said "and every woman etc. kill",

behold the reason is explicit: because "they were to Bnei Yisrael for a betrayal etc. and there was the plague in the congregation of Hashem" that because of them there was the plague,

which implies from this,

that were it not for this, also the women would be included in "keep alive for yourselves" — like the "children among the women" — even though the command was to avenge and kill the Midianites.

And likewise there would be room to say also regarding the war of obliteration of Amalek,

that it also was in the manner of avenging the vengeance of the children of Israel<sup>14</sup>,

and as it precedes

(in our parshah)

"Remember what Amalek did to you etc. how he happened upon you etc. and he cut off your rear etc.",

and therefore "you shall blot out the memory of Amalek etc."<sup>15</sup>,

and I would

be inclined to say that they are obligated to blot out

(to kill)

the men,

but the women and children "keep alive for yourselves"<sup>16</sup>

; therefore Rashi explains

(in bringing the beginning of the verse)

: the command here is to blot out "the memory

(of Amalek)

" — and this includes "from man to woman, from infant to suckling".

However

(Conclusion of the verse)

"Who repays G-d" there is no need to bring it,

because it is understood by itself,

that since the command is to kill from ox to sheep, Rashi explains the reason

(Not because "it is written" in Samuel etc.,

but)

because here it says "male" and therefore it must be "that the name of Amalek should not be mentioned even upon the animal",

it is simple that all their living creatures are included in this.

D.

But still it is not understood: According to Rashi's explanation that the reason is "that the name of Amalek should not be mentioned even etc." it is difficult: behold, the name of Amalek is called not only upon animals,

but also upon other properties,

such as houses and fields and vineyards and even movable objects — and why did Rashi write only that they were commanded to wipe out the animal,

and the command was not to destroy all their properties,

"that the name of Amalek" should not be mentioned also upon the inanimate?

Therefore Rashi adds "to say this animal was from Amalek",

And with this he resolves the aforementioned difficulty: the obliteration of Amalek must be through things that arouse remembrance by saying about them "this was from Amalek",

And this applies only to living beings and not to other properties¹⁷.

And the explanation of this:

In an animal

(and included in it all living creatures)

it is impossible to make in it a complete change so that its previous existence will not be recognizable at all,

or a change that does not return to its original state,

and especially that it is forbidden to cause pain to a living creature¹⁸

And thus it is impossible to make in it a change that causes pain.

And from this it is understood,

that also when the animal goes out to the domain of new owners,

since a complete change is not applicable to it, a trace of the first owners remains upon it.

And it is in the nature of a person to recall through it the name of its previous owners.

And therefore the animal of Amalek, even when it passes to the domain of Israel, since it will not change

(a complete change)

from its previous form,

they will say about it "This was from Amalek",

and the name of Amalek will not be erased.

But not so with other properties — there is no necessity to "erase" them,

and it is sufficient and necessary — according to the simple meaning of the verse — a change in a way that the properties will not recall the name of Amalek.

And perhaps it can be said that these things,

since it is not necessary that they remain forever in their previous existence,

behold, through a change of domain — that they entered into another domain and it is possible to change them,

it is not in the nature of a person to say about them afterwards "This is of ...

it was".

Other properties

(an inanimate thing etc.,

even if they are valuable,

such as precious stones and pearls "since they can be changed")

their existence does not endure until

So much so¹⁹

that the name of the original owners should be called upon them forever.

And this is what Rashi adds: "to say, this animal was from Amalek,"

by which it is understood why they were not commanded to eradicate all the property of Amalek except the animal

(the living being),

for specifically regarding it does the remembrance of Amalek apply,

and only through its eradication will the name of Amalek be blotted out.

And the necessity

(also)

in the simple meaning of the verse here on the spot that not all property of Amalek is lost — for if so, the verse would have said "cherem",

as we saw above regarding the apostate city*¹⁹.

5.

According to the above in Rashi's approach in the simple meaning of the verse, it will be resolved what is said in the Magen Avraham²⁰

"Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther."

At first glance,

Since Haman was of the seed of Amalek — "Haman the Agagite",

behold they were obligated to blot out his memory,

and how did Esther accept his house²¹?

According to the aforementioned approach, it is settled: There was no prohibition in this, because

(That which the name of Haman was called upon the house — "Behold, the house of Haman I gave to Esther" — was only at the time of the giving,

but when it entered into Esther's domain)

it was no longer called "the house of Haman," and they did not say about it²²

this house was of Haman²³.

And all the more so and a fortiori: The very command "Remember what Amalek did to you... do not forget" — mentions Amalek,

and yet there is no contradiction in this — according to the simple understanding,

as above — because when one remembers and blots out — this is the way that ultimately the memory of Amalek will be completely forgotten²⁴,

All the more so in the giving of Haman's house.

And etc.

And behold, after this it is perplexing: how is it possible to blot out the memory of Amalek, and yet what happened to Amalek — it is several portions in the Torah²⁵,

and on the contrary we were commanded²⁶

: Only beware for yourself etc. lest you forget etc. and lest they depart from your heart.

And likewise,

as above,

the commandment of our portion is,

as the verse says, "Remember what Amalek did to you."

And it comes out thus

(also in simple understanding of the verse)

The prohibition of remembering Amalek for the sake of remembrance,

and the obligation of remembering Amalek for the sake of erasing his memory.

And not only that, but

that initially the custom is to write his name on wood and stones in order to erase it by striking²⁷,

for it is impossible for him to fulfill the commandment "you shall erase the memory"²⁸

of Amalek without writing first²⁹.

And to note that according to this it is problematic regarding one who steals from a poor person with the intent to pay double payment because he knows that he will not receive [payment] in another way<sup>30</sup>,

one who purchases chametz on Pesach with the intent to fulfill "you shall remove it"<sup>31</sup>,

one who makes an idol with the intent to fulfill "you shall surely destroy"<sup>32</sup>.

And elsewhere.

7.

From the "wine of Torah" in Rashi's commentary:

Explained in Chassidus³³

That the kelipah of Amalek in avodah is the coldness,

"asher korcha baderech" — that it cools a person³⁴

not to be affected by Elokus etc.³⁵,

And the erasure of the memory of Amalek is through the avodah of kabalas ol³⁶.

And this matter is hinted at in Rashi.

Amalek and first of nations

(Seven nations,

seven attributes)

Amalek can act primarily in this lowly world: in the seven attributes of the animal soul and in all of the animal soul³⁷

And even — that the Name is not complete

(only Yud Hei — and not Vav Hei,

the seven attributes above)

and the throne is not complete³⁸

(throne,

without alef,

the Aluf of the world is not revealed in the concealment and covering of the world,

even though the heavens are My throne and the earth is the footstool of My feet

(footstool)).

And in man — this is "man and

(the receiver)

woman" — that is so called because of the attributes³⁹,

and when they are in smallness — this is "suckling and infant"⁴⁰

And in his animal soul "from ox and until sheep" — in its strength,

or

(in weakness)

in smallness⁴¹.

And therefore one must erase the memory of Amalek "from man to ..

sheh",

And since there is an action and aspect of Amalek among the "nations" — which is "the first of nations" etc. and so must be erased, and especially in the future it is said<sup>42</sup>

"Then I will turn to the peoples a pure language, to call all of them in the name of the Lord and to serve Him with one accord",

Therefore it is said in the verse also "from camel to donkey"

(unlike in Rashi that its matter relates to the simple meaning).

But in the aspect of silent that is the service of acceptance of the yoke

("If I did not set and was silent"⁴³

-nullification and acceptance of the yoke),

in this Amalek has no hold,

and on the contrary through the aspect of acceptance of the yoke and nullification is effected the obliteration of the memory of Amalek also from the aspect of "man and until ...

the beast.

And the Name is made complete and the throne is complete.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Teitzei 5725)