![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Amalek
Isn't this a contradiction? How can we both blot out their memory and remember what they did to us?
One interpretation is that we're supposed to blot out the details of this people, but we have to remember (vaguely) that there are people out to destroy us. Well, that's certainly achieved an effect; most people today probably have no idea who Amalek was and couldn't say one positive thing about them, and institutions like the Anti-Defamation League make sure to jump on any slight, real or not, lest it be an attack. But sometimes that leads to bad behavior; there are people out there who are convinced that the world (or some major portion of it) is out to destroy us, and some of that fear leads to pre-emptive violence that isn't appropriately aimed. That's not good for anyone. There are people who hate us, of course, and sometimes it's correct to go on the offensive, but if we go on the offensive we have to make sure our aim is true. (And I'm not just talking about Jews here.)
Maybe, instead, we have to remember -- specifically, in detail -- what Amalek did -- and, by extension, what others have done. If we remember details, names, and places, maybe it is less likely to lead to wholesale bigotry. Some Arabs hate us; make sure to remember which ones rather than tarring all Arabs with that brush. Some Europeans -- same thing. Some Christians. Some Republicans.
What, then, of blotting out their memory? If we make sure to remember the details, we will probably realize that not all members of a group share any particular goal. We can blot out Amalek as a nation while remembering what individual Amalekites, and Amalekite factions, have done. Maybe the torah is telling us to focus our memories, not to wipe them clean.
Do not read this as a touchy-feely can't-we-all-just-get-along? opinion; I believe that wrongdoers should face the consequences of their bad decisions, whether those wrongdoers are the guys with the guns, or the guys who funded them, or the guys who elected them knowing their intentions. Part of not forgetting is to not pretend that everything is fine when it's not. We should make wrongdoers pay, but we must be clear on who the wrongdoers are.
no subject
no subject
? I don't recognize the abbreviation.
I have heard more than one rabbi say that even if we meet someone on the street who introduces himself as Joe Amalek and presents papers tracing his line back to Esav, we are not to kill him. I don't know if this is due to questions of certainty, dina malchuta dina, or the abasence of the sanhedrin.
no subject
no subject
Er, "taryag"?
no subject
(Sure! They'll buy that, right?)
no subject
Which is to say, two days before Purim.
;-)
no subject
no subject
no subject
There's a discussion in the Talmud about doing this or that with the nations and they say that the biblical nations have been all scrambled up and no longer exist. It's a settled point of halacha.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I Samuel (which is the haftarah we read for this parsha) explains pretty clearly that God's command to wipe out Amalek was meant to be all-inclusive; King Saul spared some of the animals and, initially, the king, and God removed him as king over Israel for it. (The midrash says that the king, Agag, had just enough time to impregnate someone before Saul had him killed, thus continuing the line that led to Haman.)
I note that the torah tells us to blot out the memory of Amalek; it doesn't tell us to blot out Amalek directly. That command did happen (to Saul), but it's less clear that it applies to us.
We see a lot of extreme positions in the torah (most parents should cringe at the judgement of the rebellious son), and I'm glad that time and interpretation have softened some of them for us.
no subject
no subject