Rethinking Parshat Zachor

 

Before I begin I want to make very clear that I presume everything I am about to write is a product of dire ignorance on my part. I’m more than happy to be educated on this so if you know of any commentaries or midrashim which clarify, please let me know. Also, I want to make it clear that none of this is meant to cast aspersions on the Jewish practice of reading Parshat Zachor. My concerns are nit-picky. I gotta be mean.

 

Each year, we are commanded to hear the reading of Parshat Zachor, Devarim 25:17-19 which retells of the attack by Amalek. As this is in Devarim, we can assume that it was spoken/recorded/written towards the end of the Hebrews’ journeys through the wilderness. The text of this reading is as follows:

 

זָכ֕וֹר אֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֥ה לְךָ֖ עֲמָלֵ֑ק בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֥ם מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃

אֲשֶׁ֨ר קָֽרְךָ֜ בַּדֶּ֗רֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּ֤ב בְּךָ֙ כׇּל־הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִ֣ים אַֽחֲרֶ֔יךָ וְאַתָּ֖ה עָיֵ֣ף וְיָגֵ֑עַ וְלֹ֥א יָרֵ֖א אֱלֹהִֽים׃

וְהָיָ֡ה בְּהָנִ֣יחַ ה אֱלֹהֶ֣יךָ ׀ לְ֠ךָ֠ מִכׇּל־אֹ֨יְבֶ֜יךָ מִסָּבִ֗יב בָּאָ֙רֶץ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר ה־אֱ֠לֹהֶ֠יךָ נֹתֵ֨ן לְךָ֤ נַחֲלָה֙ לְרִשְׁתָּ֔הּ תִּמְחֶה֙ אֶת־זֵ֣כֶר עֲמָלֵ֔ק מִתַּ֖חַת הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם לֹ֖א תִּשְׁכָּֽח

 

I looked at the commentaries (thank you Artscroll and Sefaria) and found that this was referencing an event originally recorded in Sh’mot 17, starting in verse 8. The problem is that the version recounted in Devarim is strikingly different from the events of Sh’mot! I’ll go through the various phrases and show what I’m talking about.

 

1.       בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֥ם מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

 

When the events of Amalek’s attack took place, the people were in Refidim. It was there that the people had complained about a lack of water, shown no appreciation for Hashem’s presence and were therefore attacked by Amalek. But, again, the people were not “baderech” on any particular road. They were camped. Additionally, this encampment was on the 23^rd or Iyar according to the Seder Olam, a month after Yam Suf, after 2 other stops and the revelation at Har Sinai (see Bamidbar 33:14 for more). Why is it still reckoned by the Exodus and not marked as the path to Israel or from Har Sinai or just a next stop on their travels. In fact, 17:1 speaks of Refidim as being one of the stages of travel but does NOT connect it to yetzi’at mitzrayim. But let that be for a moment.

 

2.       אֲשֶׁ֨ר קָֽרְךָ֜ בַּדֶּ֗רֶךְ

 

According to the Rambam, the people had been camped at Refidim for a few days (17:1 “ועמדו יום או יומים”). So they weren’t on any literal road. But more than that, the version in Sh’mot says vayavo Amalek – not that Amalek happened upon them (korcha -- לְשׁוֹן מִקְרֶה Rashi, Dev 25:18) but that they intentionally approached the Hebrews.

 

3.       וַיְזַנֵּ֤ב בְּךָ֙ כׇּל־הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִ֣ים אַֽחֲרֶ֔יךָ

 

Amalek, according to Devarim, cut off the stragglers. Devious and cowardly, right? Except the people were camped and had been for a couple of days. How were there stragglers?

 

4.       וְאַתָּ֖ה עָיֵ֣ף וְיָגֵ֑עַ

 

Rashi explains that Ayef (tired) means thirsty. But according to the text, they had already been the recipients of a miracle and there was water! Why would the people be thirsty? [the more homiletic sense that they were thirsting for Torah would at least reflect the loss of faith that brought about the attack, especially since Torah is equated with water, and then the “lo yarei elokim” might even refer to the Hebrews who were absent of Torah and therefore did not show proper yir’ah, but I haven’t seen, via a quick look, anyone who sees the phrase as applying to the people of Israel] Maybe the “atah” is not the people but Moshe who might have been thought to be tired and ineffective after the people’s challenge so Amalek thought that when Moshe was weak would be a good time to attack.

 

So the surprise attack on the stragglers who had fallen behind on the arduous journey is not the way the story is told in Sh’mot and one would think that details like this, the exact ones which inspire an eternal commandment would be given when the event happened, or the details given should be in accord with the way the story is retold 40 years later.

 

Then we have this notion of an obligation to erase the memory of Amalek. In Devarim, we are told that…

 

5.       וְהָיָ֡ה בְּהָנִ֣יחַ ה אֱלֹהֶ֣יךָ ׀ לְ֠ךָ֠ מִכׇּל־אֹ֨יְבֶ֜יךָ מִסָּבִ֗יב בָּאָ֙רֶץ֙

 

When Hashem gives us a respite from the enemies that surround us in our land, THEN timche the memory of Amalek (we will erase). Has that happened yet? Are we at peace with all the surrounding countries? Is there really any rest in Israel even when there isn’t a shooting war taking place? A country with peace doesn’t need a compulsory draft, doesn’t need to build walls, doesn’t need metal detectors at every entrance and doesn’t need to worry, daily, that its children might not come home. We are clearly not at the time when the name will be erased, and those enemies are not Amalek, because we will only have to deal with Amalek when all the other enemies are done, and they are not.

 

That hearkens back to what Hashem actually said in Sh’mot. There, Hashem said that at some indeterminate, future time “macho emche” I will certainly erase. Hashem will do the erasing and not just yet. This is a promise that Hashem will do his part, a first person declaration of certainty (the doubled verb indicates the absolute inevitability) for us to rely on. And if we look at the verb in Devarim, the text reads “timche et…” you will erase, but not as a tzivui/command! This comes as a statement of future fact. We are not being given an order, we are told what will happen.

 

It could be that Hashem is promising us that at some future time, he will take care of the physical Amalek, the one who came up to us while we were encamped and who attacked us for no reason. We will fight them and Hashem will make sure that they are bodily destroyed. But when Moshiach comes and Hashem has helped us reach peace with our surrounding neighbors, then WE will automatically erase the thoughts of Amalek from our knowledge base – but not the physical group. Their nefarious deeds and history will still be known, but the evil that they represent, the kind that is capable of attacking the weak and defenseless, will simply be gone from the world and we cannot forget that promise that Hashem will make us a world in which no one will want to pursue the kind of evil epitomized by Amalek. This is a conceptual/spiritual erasing, as human nature will go through a shift. We won’t have to be commanded – that erasing will just happen.

 

So why, then, are we commanded to read Parshat Zachor each year? Is it to stoke the flames of our hatred and give us a convenient scapegoat which we can blame for everything that has gone wrong? No, quite the opposite. Evil is everywhere now – we can run into it at home or on the road and it attacks us in open and in secret ways. But Parshat Zachor is a promise of a future time when that will no longer happen, creating an opportunity to reinvigorate our faith: not to remember what happened in Sh’mot, but to look forward to the promised change that will come once we merit the arrival of the future king Moshiach.