 |
 |
Library:D'vrei Torah
Shabbat Zakhor
Dvar Torah, Shirley & Stan Samuelson
March 4, 2006 - 4 Adar, 5766
A funny thing happened on the way to the Bima! A
d'var Torah does not usually begin with a disclaimer. Rabbi Ridberg has already
explained the situation to you and we just want to add our own footnote.
The d'var Torah that we are presenting today relates to the parasha and haftorah
for Shabbat Zakhor, TO REMEMBER, the Shabbat that occurs NEXT week. But,
having been given an offer we couldn't refuse, we are here today, giving our
thoughts and comments out of sequence. We hope that you will remember them next
week on Shabbat Zakhor, the Shabbat of remembrance. I don't think that we will
ever forget them.
D'VAR TORAH FOR SHABBAT ZAKHOR
How does one start a d'var Torah? We began with the suggestions in the paper,
‘Crafting a d'var Torah’ by Rabbi Yael Ridberg. It begins:
“The crafting of a d'var Torah can seem challenging to someone who has never
attempted it,” Indeed it can and it REALLY did!
It is quite a while since we two last collaborated on a paper, coming together
from our diverse disciplines and the marked differences in analytical style:
Shirley's being psychoanalytic and mine being chemical microanalytic. So we
spent a great deal of time, utilizing our academic backgrounds and finding a way
to mutually approach a new challenge. I don't know whether or not we were
successful, but we are still on speaking terms.
In, next week's Torah portion, Deuteronomy 25:17-19, Moses reiterates that
because Amalek attacked the Israelite stragglers shortly after their escape from
Egypt, when all were tired and hungry, that they shall blot out the memory of
Amalek from under heaven and to not forget it! This unusually strong injunction
is repeated from Exodus 17:8. There it is described how Joshua led an Israelite
force against Amalek while Moses was stationed on top of a hill with the staff
of God in his hand. As long as Moses held up his hand, the Israelites prevailed
but when he lowered his hand Amalek would be winning. Aaron and Hur (a son of
Miriam) positioned themselves on each side of Moses supporting his hands and
Joshua and his men overwhelmed the people of Amalek. Then the Lord said to Moses
“ I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven!” And Moses
said, “the Lord will be at war with Amalek from generation to generation.”
Haftorah Zakhor, which is also read next week, tells of a later war between
Israel, under King Saul, and the army of King Agog, a descendent of Amalek.
Through the prophet, Samuel, Saul is ordered by God to totally exterminate Agog
with all his people and all their animals: sparing no one and nothing. This was
consistent with the earlier instruction to blot out the Amalekites. Saul's
forces killed all the followers of Agog but Saul did not obey orders completely
and Agog was slain by Samuel himself. As an aside, Rabbis have argued that there
must have been a significant delay in the killing of Agog if (as described in
the Book of Esther), Agog did have descendents and Haman was one of them.
If Agog had been slaughtered immediately, he would have had no descendants.
There is no way of knowing whether Haman, the arch nemesis in the Purim story,
which we will be reading on March 12th, was a lineal descendent of Agog and
Amalek or merely their ideological kin. In later rabbinic writings, he as
well as Amalek became a personification of anti-Semitism. Zakhor means remember,
what we are commanded to do in next week's readings and what we do when we
celebrate Purim and our escape from an earlier potential Shoah.
Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut has noted that the story of Amalek's existence needs to
be pieced together. Amalek is listed in Genesis 36:12 as a grandson of Esau. As
we know, Esau and Jacob were twin brothers, very opposite in appearance and
character. We are familiar with their strong sibling rivalry and Esau's
hostility, exacerbated by Rebecca's undue partiality towards Jacob. Some
rabbinic scholars have argued that the Amalekites, as descendents of
Esau, attacked the Israelites as they were enraged with the descendents of Jacob
because of how he had treated his brother, their ancestor. But, at a
meeting of Jacob and Esau, late in life, (described in Genesis 33:4) “Esau ran
to greet [Jacob] ”embraced him” kissed him, and they wept.” Likewise, at
the burial of Isaac (in Genesis 35:9) there is no mention of animosity between
them.
In rabbinic literature stress is laid on the moral lesson. There, It is stated
that during the Exodus when the people become “faint and weary” in the
observance of God's commands and “feared not God” that Amalek (or
anti-Semitism) was the scourge in the hands of God to punish the people. Some
traditional rabbis view it as a demand for absolute and total devoutness to God,
analogous to the need for the hands of Moses and the staff of God to be held
aloft constantly.
Some modern critics have suggested that Amalek was mythical, in part because
there is no non-Biblical evidence of his existence. Some argue that MOST
Biblical events are mythic.
As for the role of God in today's Haftorah, a war may have been fought for
survival and its conduct ascribed to the will of God. It is difficult to
imagine, however, that a merciful God would have ordered the murder of woman,
children and infants. Reviewing the arguments, much of the story seems to fail a
literal interpretation. What then is OUR conclusion about the meaning of the
Amalek and Agog material in the Torah and Haftorah?
We, also, question the historical existence of Amalek and believe that he
is symbolic and plays a role in an ethical parable. The story of Amalek is
fundamentally a moral lesson by those who wrote the Torah and who wielded power
in the name of God. Consistent with this is Deuteronomy 25:17-19,
which is part of next week's Torah reading and which doesn't quite seem to fit.
It is the link to the Haftorah Zakhor and to the celebration of Purim but it
doesn't appear to relate to the portions of the book of Deuteronomy that either
immediately precede it or follow it. Moses may have been just loosely
reminiscing in his farewell oration to the Israelites. Or perhaps it is more
relevant than it first appears. The location of Deuteronomy 25:17-19 is
immediately after this week's sections on morality and personal behavior, that
state that “everyone who deals dishonestly, is abhorrent to the Lord your
God.” It should be noted, also, that Deuteronomy 26, which immediately follows
next week's section, reminds us of our escape from the harshness of Egypt and to
share our bounty with the “stranger, the fatherless and the widow.”
Rabbi David Siegel has noted, in an Orthodox website, that Amalek reflects, in
extreme proportion, the Jewish people's subtle - but similar - imperfections (www.torah.org). Rabbi J. H. Hertz commented that
Haftorah Zakhor is a “charge to generations in Israel” to blot out from the
human heart the cruel Amalek spirit.” And that “In the battle of the Lord
against the Amalekites in the realm of the Spirit, the only successful weapons
are courage and conviction, truth and righteousness.” (J. H. Hertz (1968) The
Pentateuch and Haftorahs, Second Edition, London: Soncino Press. pp.
280-281, 995.)
This interpretation would also explain why the Torah says that all trace of
Amalek must be obliterated by the Israelites although that action was
certainly within God's ability to do so.
As Reconstructionists, we are used to examining and interpreting the Tanakh
symbolically. It appears most appropriate, to us, to view Amalek as the
immoral, uncontrolled, angry portion of ourselves and the teachings of the Torah
as our civilized moral component.
From a Freudian perspective, Amalek can be seen, as akin to the aggressive,
hateful and destructive parts within us, emanating from uncontrolled id
pressures, while a punishing, vindictive God is comparable to Freud's super-ego.
Similarly, human positive behavior is analogous to what Freudians call the
reality ego (or we might say in less Freudian terms “acting like a mensch”)
and doing the right thing for self and society.
As Reconstructionists, we interpret next week's parasha and the Haftorah Zakhor
as a demand for strict adherence to Godly behavior: to lives of integrity
and strong ethical principles.
That means that we should relentlessly fight the Amalek-like tendencies within
ourselves; that we should not prey on the weak and defenseless, the poor and the
homeless; but should help those in need. There are many opportunities for that
in our world today. Citing just a few at random, there are New York Cares, the
American Jewish World Service, Project Ezra, assistance to the victims of
Katrina and aid to Darfur. The readings of Shabbat Zakhor ask us to remember our
own history of vulnerability and persecution, and to intervene in a Godly way to
help those who now need our help.
Our interpretation is certainly subject to expansion or comment. What are
your thoughts?
Shirley & Stan Samuels
West End Synagogue
March 4, 2006
|
