Tetzave answers

Tetzave (Zachor) 5723
Alef.

1. Regarding the three verses cited by Benno Jakob explicating Amalek’s grievous sin when they attacked the Jews on the latter’s way out of Egypt:

a.  I Melachim 2:7 “But show kindness unto the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those that eat at thy table; for so they drew nigh unto me when I fled from Absalom thy brother.” When someone is being pursued, it is a time to intervene on their behalf rather than take advantage of their vulnerability. Amalek attacks soon after the Jews had been pursued by the Egyptians and were saved by the miracle of the splitting of the sea.

b. Devarim 23:4-5 “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly of the LORD for ever; Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Aram-naharaim, to curse thee.” Just as the male Ammonites and Moabites showed no signs of standard hospitality when the Jews travelled in proximity to their kingdoms, and were consequently discriminated against in terms of converting and marrying into the Jewish nation, so too the Amalekites were guilty of grievous inhospitable behavior when they attacked the Jews travelling in their area following the Exodus.

c.  Devarim 24:9 “Remember what the LORD thy God did unto Miriam, by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt.” This verse parallels literarily the language in Devarim 25:17 “Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt”. Just as the verse concerning Miriam is understood as a call to keep in mind her negative actions vis-à-vis Moshe in BaMidbar 12, so too this verse points to commemorating Amalek’s negative actions when the Jews left Egypt.

2.  Beno Jakob points out that in several verses, the Canaanites as well as other hostile nations, are referred to as “enemies” of the Jews, whereas Amalek is never given such an appellation:

a. Devarim 25:19 “Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget.”

b. I Shmuel 14:47 “So Saul took the kingdom over Israel, and fought against all his enemies on every side, against Moab, and against the children of Ammon, and against Edom, and against the kings of Zobah, and against the Philistines; and whithersoever he turned himself, he put them to the worse.”

c. I Shmuel 15:3 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

Such a distinction might be due to the fact that the Canaanites as well as surrounding nations were either threatened by the Jews passing so close to them that they were led to believe that they would be dispossessed of their lands,¹ or they were actually expelled from their city-states in Canaan. Therefore due to their either potential or actual competition for the lands of these nations, they were defined as enemies, or perhaps “competitors”, of the Jews. Amalek had no such fear or interest and therefore their attack was purely out of some personal malice rather than due to territorial protectiveness.

3.  a. The story of the Egyptian youth:

I Shmuel 30:13-15 “And David said unto him: 'To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou?' And he said: 'I am a young Egyptian, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days ago I fell sick. We made a raid upon the South of the Cherethites, and upon that which belongeth to Judah, and upon the South of Caleb; and we burned Ziklag with fire.' And David said to him: 'Wilt thou bring me down to this troop?' And he said: 'Swear unto me by God, that thou wilt neither kill me, nor deliver me up into the hands of my master, and I will bring thee down to this troop.'”

The qualities of Amalek that emerge from this story are:

1.  A master who is uncaring about his servant and ready to abandon him when he is no longer considered of any practical use.

2.  The modus operandi of Amalek is to raid, plunder and burn.

b. The story of the Amalekite youth:

II Shmuel 1:6-10 “And the young man that told him said: 'As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and the horsemen pressed hard upon him. And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered: Here am I. And he said unto me: Who art thou? And I answered him: I am an Amalekite. And he said unto me: Stand, I pray thee, beside me, and slay me, for the agony hath taken hold of me; because my life is just yet in me. So I stood beside him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen; and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.'”   

The qualities of Amalek that emerge from this story are:

1.  An individual who thinks nothing of killing a person who is terminal. Perhaps this is why Shaul asked him to do this—he had identified himself as an Amaleki and therefore capable of insensitivity. (Of course those who are pro-euthanasia [which of course is not Halachic] could define this as a mercy killing. Perhaps that’s the point, i.e., the different value systems informing Jewish practice as opposed to the behavior of Amalekites.)

2.  Taking the crown and bracelet as proof of death (perhaps in the interests of earning a reward from David—obtaining booty appearing to be a central purpose of Amalekite activity) as opposed to seeing such an action as disparaging Shaul’s body.

4. During the report of the spies, they say the following: (BaMidbar 13:28-9) “Howbeit the people that dwell in the land are fierce, and the cities are fortified, and very great; and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. Amalek dwelleth in the land of the South; and the Hittite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, dwell in the mountains; and the Canaanite dwelleth by the sea, and along by the side of the Jordan.' 

Beit.

1. קרך—a) Happening      Sifre, Ibn Ezra, first view in RaShI.

          b) Cooled off       Tanchuma, second view in RaShI.

          c) Arbitrary attack (in contrast to typical reasons to engage in warfare) MaLBIM.

2. The sins of Amalek:

          a) Demonstrating that there is nothing to fear from either Israel or God.

b) Moshe was the orchestrator of the miracles and God was not Responsible for any aspect of the Exodus.

3. The most basic difference between the Tanchuma and RaShI is the sequence. Whereas in the Tanchuma first cites the parable and then its application to the situation of Amalek, RaShI first explains the situation and then mentions the parable. Perhaps the reason for this is that RaShI’s first order responsibility is to define the word קרך. Only once he explains the context of the word in the verse, does he give an illustration from everyday life of what had transpired. The Midrash is more removed from the verse in general and is playing off the word almost as if it is not in context. Consequently the parable takes on greater significance and is the first thing that is cited by the Midrash.

   Other differences:

         a) omission of author of Mashal, R. Nechunia.

b) omission of the details of the splitting of the sea and the drowning of the Egyptians, cutting to the chase immediately how all of the other nations were fearful of the Jews.

c) omission of proof text that the other nations were afraid of the Jews as a result of the miracles of the Exodus.

d) while in the parable it mentions that Amalek was defeated, RaShI does not repeat this in his explanation, while Tanchuma does.

It is likely that all of these omissions were for the sake of brevity.

4.  RaShI cites both interpretations, one from Sifre and the other from Tanchuma, because in terms of the simple meaning of the verse, it is more contextual to say that Amalek arbitrarily attacked the Jews (the normal reasons not applying as pointed out by MaLBIM). However, the usage of קרך in such a context is atypical, giving rise to additional possibilities or layers of meaning and therefore RaShI quoted the second interpretation which certainly has much more theological and historical significance.

5.  Both RaShI and MaLBIM agree that Amalek’s attack was in order to demonstrate that other nations should not be intimidated by the Jewish Exodus from Egypt. However, RaShI focuses upon the fear of the Jews, whereas MaLBIM says that the object of Amalek’s attack was to ameliorate fear of God.

6.  Devrim 25:18 “how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear, when thou wast faint and weary; and ? feared not God.” Since the previous subject in the sentence was “you” in “thou wast faint and weary”, it stands to reason that the last phrase about being God-fearing would also apply to “you”, i.e., the Jewish people. MaLBIM redefines the final phrase and applies it to Amalek. Furthermore,   ולא ירא אלקים could be understood to connote that Amalek did not fear the Jewish version of God. However, MaLBIM makes them out to be athiests who do not believe in any deity. In that approach, MaLBIM could cite what Avraham says to Avimelech in Beraishit 20:11, “And Abraham said: 'Because I thought: Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.” Avraham is saying that there is no generic fear of God overall, as opposed to a specific type/form/version of the Deity.

Gimel.

1. It seems that the word הנחשלים is describing the attackers rather than the victims. בך, which is clearly referring to the victims is singular while הנחשלים   is plural.

2.  Being עיף ויגע appear to be physical rather than spiritual characteristics. Consequently, RaShI understands עיף ויגע as describing the Jews, while ולא ירא אלקים describes Amalek.

3.  Ohr HaChayim makes the point that fear in battle does not originate with one’s physical state, but rather as the result of one’s spiritual state. The verse in Yeshayahu states that fear originates from sin as opposed to some other cause. (This is reminiscent of the position of R. Yossi HaGalili in a Mishna in Sota:

Sota 44a

R. AKIBA SAYS: 'FEARFUL AND FAINTHEARTED’ IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD LITERALLY VIZ., HE IS UNABLE TO STAND IN THE BATTLE-RANKS AND SEE A DRAWN SWORD. R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS: 'FEARFUL AND FAINTHEARTED' ALLUDES TO ONE WHO IS AFRAID BECAUSE OF THE TRANSGRESSIONS HE HAD COMMITTED; THEREFORE THE TORAH CONNECTED ALL THESE  (THE OTHER EXEMPTIONS FROM WAR) WITH HIM THAT HE MAY RETURN HOME ON THEIR ACCOUNT.  R. JOSE SAYS: A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW, AN ORDINARY PRIEST WHO MARRIED A DIVORCEE OR HALUZAH, A LAY ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED AN ILLEGITIMATE OR NETHINAH, AND THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED AN ILLEGITIMATE OR A NATHIN-BEHOLD SUCH AN ONE IS 'FEARFUL AND FAINTHEARTED.)

4. Ohr HaChayim is stating that in addition to their physical weariness, the people were bereft of that inner quality that could renew their strength, i.e., the sense that God is with them. Since they were sinful, they could not count on God’s Support, which in turn weakened them further and made them that much more susceptible to Amalek’s attack.

Daled.

Shemot 27:20 “And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually.”

כ וְאַתָּ֞ה תְּצַוֶּ֣ה ׀ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וְיִקְח֨וּ אֵלֶ֜יךָ שֶׁ֣מֶן זַ֥יִת זָ֛ךְ כָּתִ֖ית לַמָּא֑וֹר לְהַֽעֲלֹ֥ת נֵ֖ר תָּמִֽיד׃

1.א. The split in the first portion of the verse (ending in the Etnachta under “למאור” is the word “ישראל” marked by a Revia. RaShBaM says that since initially when the donations were brought, they were being brought effectively to HaShem for the construction of the Mishkan, but at this point, the oil in particular is being brought for the maintenance of the Menora, therefore the oil has to be brought to Moshe, or whomever follows him in the position of authority. So although the first half of the verse is broken up by “ישראל” the emphasis is really on "ואתה", and the Geirshayim over it draws even more attention to it.

רשב"ם שמות פרשת תצוה פרק כז פסוק כ

(כ) ואתה תצוה - למעלה הוא אומר (שמות כה:ב) “דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו לי תרומה” לפי שעה לצורך המשכן, אבל כאן שציווי זה לכל הדורות לתת שמן למאור לכל שנה ושנה לכך הוא אומר "ואתה תצוה", שינה הלשון, לפי שכל לשון צוואה לדורות היא. וכן הוא אומר בתורת כהנים ובסיפרי כי כל לשון ציווי אינו אלא מיד ולדורות:

ב.  The argument concerns what the adjective “זך” is modifying, either the nature of the oil that is extracted from any olive (RaShI), or the type of olive from which the oil is being drawn (Ibn Ezra.)

ג.   “זך” seems to be modifying the phrase "שמן זית" marked by a Munach and a Mercha, as opposed to modifying only “זית” which would seem to support RaShI since we are talking about the oil rather than the olive itself.

ד.  The word "תמיד" would seem to be an adverb, modifying the verb "להעלות" rather than an adjective modifying the noun “נר” because of the Mercha Tipcha that connect “להעלות נר” and separating them from the Sof Pasuk under “תמיד”.

2. Shemot 28:4 “And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a tunic of chequer work, a mitre, and a girdle; and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto Me in the priest's office.”

ד וְאֵ֨לֶּה הַבְּגָדִ֜ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַֽעֲשׂ֗וּ חֹ֤שֶׁן וְאֵפוֹד֙ וּמְעִ֔יל וּכְתֹ֥נֶת תַּשְׁבֵּ֖ץ מִצְנֶ֣פֶת וְאַבְנֵ֑ט וְעָשׂ֨וּ בִגְדֵי־קֹ֜דֶשׁ לְאַֽהֲרֹ֥ן אָחִ֛יךָ וּלְבָנָ֖יו לְכַֽהֲנוֹ־לִֽי׃

The reason why there is a division between the six garments between the first three and the last three, is because the first three are unique to the Kohen Gadol, while the last three are common to the regular Kohanim as well.