English translation — פ' זכור-פורים

A.

The Shabbat before Purim we read Parshat Zachor¹

— "to <b>connect</b> the erasing of Amalek with the erasing of Haman"².

The closest connection that can be³

from Shabbat of Parshat Zachor⁴

with

Purim is

(as the determination of this year)

— that the 14th of Adar

(Purim)

is on Sunday,

so that it comes out,

that the "doing"

(Purim)

comes immediately after the "remembering"⁵.

The concept of remembering the war of Amalek⁶

appears several times in Tanakh,

as the Gemara⁷

derives from a verse⁸

"Write this as a memorial in the book — write this what is written here

(in Parsha Beshalach)

and in Mishneh Torah

(in Parsha Teitzei⁹),

a memorial of what is written in the Prophets

(in the Book of Samuel¹⁰),

in the book what is written in the Megillah" — the Megillah is also a matter of remembering the obliteration of Amalek¹¹.

(without a break of time)

consecutively <b>— all </b>the places in the Written Torah where it speaks about the obliteration of Amalek: on Shabbat Kodesh we read Parshat Zachor "in Mishneh Torah" and also the Haftarah "what is written in the Prophets"

(in Samuel)¹²,

and immediately afterwards — on Motzaei Shabbat¹³,

we read "what is written <b>in the Megillah"</b>,

<b> </b>and the next day we read

(also)

"what is written here"

(Parsha Vayavo Amalek)¹⁴].

The advantage in general in this is not only that one mentions the erasure of Amalek several times in the Torah,

but in that there is in all &lt;b&gt;parts of &lt;/b&gt;the Torah,

and in the language of the Yerushalmi&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

— it is "written in the Torah and in the Prophets and in the Writings"

(and as one finds in several matters about which the Gemara emphasizes "this matter is written in the Torah and repeated in the Prophets and tripled in the Writings"&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;).

Which this brings out even more how the war of Amalek is a most general matter,

to the extent that it pertains to every part

(level)

of Torah.

Regarding how in time,

one says concerning the war of Amalek — "The war is the L-rd's against Amalek <b>from generation to generation"</b>¹⁷,

<b> </b>So is this also regarding

to the Torah,

that the war of Amalek is explicit in all parts of the Torah¹⁸.

Based on this, it will be understood that in the Bavli, he specifies even more¹⁹

and adds "what is written here <b>and in Mishneh Torah</b>"<b> — </b>because in the Torah itself,

Mishneh Torah is a category unto itself,

as the Gemara²⁰

distinguishes that the first four books are "Moshe said them from the mouth of the Almighty" and Mishneh Torah "Moshe said them from his own mouth",

"and with the Holy Spirit"²¹.

2.

And one can say,

that according to the opinion of the Bavli, an additional elevation comes into play here,

and with an introduction to the precision in the language of the Bavli: "write this, what is written here and in Mishneh Torah, a remembrance of what is written in the Prophets,

in the book, what is written <b>in the Megillah</b>"<b> </b>— for at first glance,

in continuation of the phrase "what is written <b>in the Prophets</b>"<b> </b>he should have said "in the book, what is written <b>in the Writings</b>"²²?

Even more: in the Yerushalmi it indeed states,

as above "and found it written in the Torah and in the Prophets and in the Writings..

This is the Torah..

Remembrance these are the Prophets..

In the book these are &lt;b&gt;the Writings&lt;/b&gt;"!

And it can be said that with this is brought out in the Bavli,

that the superiority in this

Is not only what is in all parts of the Torah,

but also in that which in each part comes to a special intensity and severity.

And therefore he changes in the Bavli and says

(not "in the Writings",

but)

"in the book of what is written in the Megillah": for regarding "Prophets" the intensity that comes regarding "Torah" is understood.

Although Torah is above prophecy and Prophets²³

— but there is a severity in the words of the Prophets,

that one who transgresses the words of the prophet is liable to death,

unlike one who transgresses the words of Torah

but this itself is a proof,

that there is an intensity in the words of the Prophets in general,

even also when it is only "written in the Prophets"

(and it is in actuality not connected with the aforementioned punishment)].

But through that which "ketubah..

in ketuvim" apparently does not come to any substance.

Therefore the Bavli says "in the book what is written &lt;b&gt;in the Megillah&lt;/b&gt;",

&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;as follows.

Gimmel.

One will understand this based on the explanation in the Gemara there in Megillah&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;,

And this is its language: "Esther sent to the sages: Write me for generations&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

They sent to her: Have I not written for you three times&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

three times and not four times

("In three places we have to mention the war of Amalek

In the book of Shemot and in Mishneh Torah and in the book of Shmuel,

And this is what Shlomo said regarding the sixth — to his drinking you are not permitted to square it — Rashi),

Until they found for him a verse written in the Torah: Write this as a memorial in the book; write this — what is written here and in Mishneh Torah,

A memorial — what is written in the Prophets,

In the book — what is written in the Megillah.

Rashi translates on "this — what is written here and in Mishneh Torah" — "for everything that is written in the Torah is called one writing."

One must understand

(As the commentators ask²⁷)

: What did "they found for him a verse written in the Torah" accomplish?

The proof is indeed only that this is "one writing" — that "thirds" one may,

one knew already also before

(without the verse "writing etc."),

only one learned that "here"

(in These are the Names)

and in Mishneh Torah are counted as two

(and in Prophets is "thirds")

: And on the other hand — also from the verse "Write this as a memorial in the book" it is proven that one may not write any "fourths" only "thirds" — so what was newly established

("until they found for him a Scriptural source")

from the verse "Write this etc."?

In this verse it apparently does not state that "here" and in Mishneh Torah are one writing!

And if this is compelled from the reasoning,

then

(a)

Initially what did he hold and ultimately what did he hold,

(b)

what does the verse do here?

4.

Another matter that requires explanation: the Rambam rules²⁹

"All the books of

the Prophets and all the Writings will be nullified in the days of Mashiach except for the Scroll of Esther, and it will endure like the five books of the Torah and like the laws of the Oral Torah, which are never nullified."

In the Hagahot Maimoniyot he brings on this the source from the Yerushalmi Megillah there the continuation of the sugya

: R' Yochanan and Reish Lakish: R' Yochanan said the Prophets and Writings are destined to be nullified, and the five books of the Torah are not destined to be nullified. What is the reason? "A great voice and did not cease"

Reish Lakish said: Even the Scroll of Esther and the halachot are not destined to be nullified, so it is.

In the Alshich in his commentary on the Scroll of Esther

he explains the source for our Sages, may their memory be blessed, that the Scroll of Esther is not destined to be nullified from the above teaching

that they found in the Torah: "Write this as a memorial in a book,"

one learns that "in a book" refers to the Scroll,

"therefore our Sages, may their memory be blessed, saw fit to say that this book will not be nullified, because the Torah's commandment is to write it, and therefore when the Torah is not nullified, also what it commanded to write will not be nullified, unlike all the books of the Prophets and Writings which the Torah did not command to write them."

And one can say that so too is the opinion of the Rambam,

that he learns it out

(also)

from the aforementioned Gemara "in the book what is written

in the Megillah".

And according to this, the ruling of the Rambam is not only based on the Yerushalmi³⁴

but also founded in the Bavli.

commentators³⁵

ask however on this explanation of the Alshich: we say indeed

(plainly)

the Prophets and Writings are destined to be nullified,

which implies that also the book of Samuel is included,

whereas the remembrance of the war with Amalek from the book of Samuel we also fulfill from the <b>same</b> verse "write this as a remembrance in the book",

d.

also on this

(the book of Samuel)

is "a commandment of the Torah to write it"?

h.

h.

and one can explain the explanation in this:

The difference between the remembrance of the war of Amalek in the Prophets

(Book of Samuel)

and how this is in the Scroll of Esther is understood from the language of the Gemara itself: Regarding the Prophets, one learns this from the word <b>"remembrance,</b>

what is written in the Prophets",

and regarding

the Scroll, one learns this from the word <b>"in the book,</b>

what is written in the Scroll".

That

is

what is written in the Prophets is the obligation

(only)

"remembrance",

the command in this is not

(so)

the writing itself,

but that the "remembrance" comes through the writing in the Prophets,

But not so with the Megillah, the commandment regarding it is <b>"in a book,"</b>

in addition to "and place in the ears of Joshua" through speech in the ears,

it should be a writing "in a book — that which is written in the Megillah."

And it can be said that this is also the difference between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli:

In the Yerushalmi one learns that remembering the deed of Amalek must be written³⁶

"in the Torah and in the Prophets and in the Writings",

and since one finds it only in the Torah and in the Prophets,

and not in the Writings,

it is understood that this is the source for the writing of the Megillah so that there should be remembering of the deed of Amalek also among the Writings,

"and in the book of these <b>Writings</b>"³⁷.

<b> </b>But one does not distinguish the Megillah by itself; this is not a law

(detail)

in the writing of the Megillah,

but a law

(detail)

in the Writings,

that one mentions the eradication of Amalek also in the Writings.

According to the Bavli, however, one learns <b>"from the book </b>what is written <b>in the Megillah",</b>

that it is a

Special writing of the Megillah,

not similar to

(the writing of)

the rest of the Writings,

and also not like the writing of the war of Amalek that is written in the Prophets,

which is only a category of fitness of "remembrance"³⁸.

However, regarding the Megillah, a law of <b>"in a book"</b>³⁹ was innovated,

<b> </b>the command is about the act of <b>writing</b>⁴⁰,

<b> </b>that it should be a book.

In another style: This is not

(only)

a law

(detail)

in the Writings,

that the war of Amalek should be mentioned in the Writings,

but a law in the war of Amalek

(the fourth),

that it must be "in a book".

6.

Based on this, the difference of opinions is also understood, that <b>"At first </b>they sent to her: Have I not written for you threefold and not fourfold",

and in the conclusion "

(until)

they found for him a verse written in the Torah":

Initially it was learned that the different places where the war of Amalek is mentioned are connected with the different levels of ruach hakodesh

if "it was said with ruach hakodesh"⁴¹

(as the Gemara continues)].

And consequently one must count that which is here and that which is in Mishneh Torah as two separate [matters],

because there is a difference between the first four books and Mishneh Torah

(as above section a),

and likewise that which was said in Shmuel by the prophets is a separate type

(and law)

— prophecy⁴².

And consequently one cannot add the ruach hakodesh of the days of Esther which is an entirely different type — after the time of prophets and prophecy

(— later ones,

the time of the Writings)⁴³,

because "I have written for you threefold ..

and not fourfold."

Afterwards however "they found a verse <b>written in the Torah</b>,"

this is connected with the manner in which it is <b>"written in the Torah,"</b>

therefore they learn from this verse <b>"write this </b>what is written here and in Mishneh Torah": the aforementioned difference between the first four books and Mishneh Torah is in the manner of the saying,

but in the category and law of writing,

<b>"write this,"</b>

"what is written here and in Mishneh Torah" both have the same category⁴⁴.

Based on this, the continuation is understood,

the difference between Prophets and Megillah,

and this is not only that one learns that the writing must be in two lines,

but these are two separate types of writing: in Prophets it is only a "qualification" for <b>"remembrance"</b>*⁴⁴,

<b> </b>but not so "what is written in the Megillah" which one learns from "in the book",

this is a law of writing "in the book".

D.

H.

that Megillah is <b>in the manner of </b>"what is written here and in the Mishnah

Torah" — the five books of the Torah⁴⁵

— concerning which it is explicitly stated "write this"⁴⁶.

7.

And one could say,

that this itself is the explanation of Esther’s request

(as it states in the Bavli)

<b>"Write me for generations"</b>: she requested that this not only be written as a part of "Ketuvim" and nothing more,

but "write me <b>for generations"</b>⁴⁷

<b> </b>— a writing upon which there is a law and obligation of writing

(of the Torah),

so that then it will not be nullified,

it is <b>for generations,</b>

And particularly according to the Rogatchover⁴⁸

who elaborates regarding "a matter written in the Torah",

that "it is a matter that is continuous and always active"⁴⁹,

therefore when one attaches his vow to the oath of Moses⁵⁰

the oath takes effect even though Moses had released his oath — "since the oath <b>is written in the Torah</b> it is a matter that is continuous and as if the oath always exists"⁵¹.

And this is the superiority in the eternity of the Five Books of the Torah that they will not be nullified,

although "the entire Torah is eternal in its generalities and its particulars"⁵²

(in which are included simply also the words of the Prophets)⁵³

: matters of Torah in general, their eternity is in that the commands and instructions do not change and in them there will never be any change, deficiency, or addition⁵⁴,

one must fulfill them always

(and as our Sages, of blessed memory,⁵⁵

say also regarding the Prophets — "A prophecy that was needed <b>for generations </b>was written, and that which was not needed was not written".

But the eternity of the Five Books of the Torah is in a manner that the <b>command itself </b>is always present⁵⁶.

Because the Five Books of the Torah, its essence is — <b>writing </b>

(but not so the "writing" of the Prophets is not as a law of writing in itself,

but as a preparation for "remembrance"*⁵⁶

as above).

And this is also the function of Megillah,

that we learn it from <b>"in the book</b> what is written <b>in the Megillah</b>",

<b> </b>that its eternity is in the manner of the eternity of the Five Books of the Torah,

things that are in writing⁵⁷

— a book,

they <b>"say" constantly </b>the matters*⁵⁷.

8.

Based on this will be understood and sweetened the precise language of the aforementioned Rambam "All the books of the prophets and all the Writings are destined to be nullified in the days of the Messiah except for the Scroll of Esther

(and he continues)

&lt;b&gt;And it is enduring &lt;/b&gt;like the five books of the Torah" — for at first glance: according to the continuation of the style of the language

("All etc. are destined to be nullified etc. except for the Scroll of Esther")

he should have said "that it will not be nullified — like the five books of the Torah etc. that are never nullified"?

But with this the Rambam says and explains the nature and reason that the Scroll of Esther is not nullified — "like the five books of the Torah": "And it is enduring"

(— in the present tense),

it is not a reality that was once said and given and

<b>Its content </b>will

(also)

after time<b> </b>not become nullified,

the <b>instructions </b>will not become actualized,

rather it is a reality that she <b>herself </b>is always <b>existing,</b>

it is said always,

<b>and consequently </b>it is not possible that it become nullified.

But not so "the books of the prophets and all the writings",

although they are &lt;b&gt;instructions &lt;/b&gt;for generations,

"necessary for generations",

they are however a matter of "remembrance",

And one could say that &lt;b&gt;on the contrary &lt;/b&gt;"remembrance" applies only to a thing which is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; before us&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;,

it is not in the category of "writing",

"book",

the speech

(— speak)

&lt;b&gt;themselves &lt;/b&gt;are not continuous always&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;.

9.

The reason that specifically in the war of Amalek one finds an emphasis <b>special</b> in the Torah on the matter of for generations — eternity,

until <b>"in the book,"</b>

although all matters written in the Five Books of Moses are eternal — it is explicit in the Written Torah itself

(as above section 1)

"For the hand is on the throne of Yah, war for Hashem with Amalek <b>from generation to generation</b>."

And one may add in the reason of the matter: He is the one who brought all the remaining

(also all the nations of the world)

to war,

as it were,

against Hashem

(in the Name and the Throne)

through that which "he cooled you" — "he cooled"

(the boiling bath)

before others⁶⁰.

And in the inwardness of the humble one it can be said: It is known in the explanation of the matter of "the beginning of the nation of Amalek"⁶¹,

So the 7 nations are opposite the 7 evil attributes,

In which refinement and purification is applicable up to transformation,

But Amalek is opposite the aspect of Keter of the klipah,

Insolence,

A kingdom without a crown⁶²,

And therefore "its end is to destruction".

This is the opposite side of the true Keter,

Of the Oneness of Hashem,

What this means in avodah — that he opposes the faith and knowledge of G‑d,

and the aspect of ratzono deliba which is above intellect in holiness.

And therefore the seven nations were immediately conquered upon their entry into the land,

but with Amalek it is a constant war,

until it is in the manner of an oath,

"The hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, was raised to swear by His throne to have war and enmity with Amalek forever"⁶³

: Because — in daily avodah — the seven middos are transformed and refined in the time of the opportune moment of prayer,

but the kelipah of Amalek,

which knows its Master and intends to rebel against Him,

And this exists in all levels of avodas Hashem.

Even when a Jew acts and he has faith and knowledge of G‑d through his contemplation,

"And you shall know this day",

and also in avodas Hashem he gives himself over with mesirus nefesh above intellect,

there also comes there the aspect of Amalek in subtlety.

Because from the fact that he is the first of nations,

the aspect of keter of kelipah,

he is there and touches every level.

And therefore, in Amalek specifically is emphasized the matter of "from generation to generation",

an eternal war,

because it touches <b>in every </b>generation,

in all levels.

And one could say in a possible way — that therefore one finds such a multitude in the discourses of our Rabbis, our leaders, in which they explain at length the matter of "the first of nations is Amalek, and his end is destruction" and the obliteration of Amalek in the inner dimension of the Torah and in the service of G-d,

and they reviewed it

(although there is no study hall without a novel idea⁶⁴)

every year.

As long as one is still in exile,

even after all the ascents in divine service,

there is still the aspect of Amalek in every place,

and one must wage war against him until — the obliteration of Amalek.

And the next day — again war with Amalek according to the level of tomorrow and the state of the world of tomorrow⁶⁵.

And since the first of nations is Amalek,

as above,

is this not so much

(— completely)

in the power of man himself to wage war with him

(unlike in the war with the seven nations — evil traits),

rather one must come to a granting of power from above,

I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek⁶⁶,

Which this "goes" and is drawn and given from the Hidden⁶⁷

of the Holy One, blessed be He, through the hidden things of the Torah and through the hidden things of Israel — through our leaders in their discourses

Chassidus

(revelation — in a manner of taamim at least — of S'tim d'Oraisa),

power to erase the memory of Amalek that is in each one of Israel,

up to the matter in detail — "asher korcha",

the coldness in the service of G-d.

And just as it was in the first war with Amalek,

that it was connected with the power of Moshe,

they needed the men of Moshe⁶⁸,

and so too during the war itself "and it was when Moshe raised his hand, Israel prevailed etc."⁶⁹,

and likewise in the war in the days of Mordechai and Esther,

that when Haman wanted to destroy all the <b>Jews</b> because Jews are "Yehudim" — modim umis'yahadim b'achdus Hashem every day and in every place

(and Haman,

who was from

(in the aspect of kelipah)

Amalek,

opposed this),

the salvation of the Jews was from their mesiras nefesh for the One⁷⁰,

through their connection with Mordechai

(the Yehudi and)

the tzaddik,

who was like Moshe in his generation⁷¹.

So it is in every generation,

that one must arrive at the power of the spreading of Moses who is in every generation⁷²

— the leader

of the generation,

and in our generation,

the leader of the generation, the Rebbe, the father-in-law,

in order to blot out

(even)

the memory of Amalek,

And through the connection to the tzaddik,

and that each one does all that is in his power in his service to his Maker to blot out the memory of Amalek,

erasing every movement that is contrary to G‑dliness — this hastens in actuality the "war &lt;b&gt;of the L‑rd&lt;/b&gt; against Amalek from generation to generation" "from the generation of Mashiach and from the generation of the World to Come"&lt;sup&gt;73&lt;/sup&gt;,

when it will be fulfilled "for I will surely blot out the memory of Amalek from under the heavens"&lt;sup&gt;74&lt;/sup&gt;,

and it will be ,

the Name is complete and the Throne is complete"&lt;sup&gt;75&lt;/sup&gt;

And also then the Scroll of Esther will be enduring and "the days of Purim&lt;sup&gt;76&lt;/sup&gt;

will not be abolished, as it is said&lt;sup&gt;77&lt;/sup&gt;

and these days of Purim will not pass from among the Jews, and their memory will not cease from their seed".

(From sichos of Purim and Shabbos Parshas Tisa and Shabbos Parshas Vayikra 5742)