Ben Torah Versus Amalek – A Winning Strategy: Adapted from
the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Purim Maamar 1)
Adapted
By Eliakim Willner
Eliakim Willner is author of “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv
HaTorah: An Appreciation of Torah Study”, a translation with commentary of a
work by the Maharal of Prague, published by Artscroll/Mesorah. He is currently
working on a continuation of the Nesivos Olam series, “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv
HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer”.
Section 1 – First In, and Out Forever
“Amalek is first among nations, but in the end
he will be destroyed forever” (Bamidbar 24:20). The conclusion of this posuk
means that - though the End of Days epoch can generally repair the faults of
the non-Jewish nations - the nation of Amalek is beyond remedy. And
since, at the End of Days, the correction of faults is a precondition to
continued existence, the destruction of Amalek is inevitable. The words “in the
end he will be destroyed forever” mean that the End of Days compels the
destruction of Amalek.
The reason is provided in the same posuk. It is
because “Amalek is the first among the nations”, that “in the end he
will be destroyed forever”.
Amalek is “first
among nations” because it is the first nation that fought against Yisroel. All
the nations oppose Yisroel and fight against her but Amalek was the first
to enter into this battle. It follows from the posuk, then, that the
reason the destruction of Amalek is assured even at the End of Days is
because of Amalek’s role as the first adversary of Yisroel.
“Amalek is
first among nations, but in the end he will be destroyed forever”. Because Amalek
is first in the battle of the nations against Yisroel, it has no hope of
remedy, even when other nations undergo rehabilitation.
This Maamar explains the connection between Amalek’s
position and Amalek’s destiny.
Section 2 – Scoffers Never Learn
The chapter of the Torah that discusses the defeat of Amalek
is adjacent to the chapter that discusses Yisro, who was impressed by Yisroel’s
victory over Amalek in battle. The chachomim explain the
connection using the posuk in Mishlei “smite the scorner and the
naive will become aware”. “Smite the scorner”: this refers to the defeat of Amalek.
“And the naive will become aware”: this refers to Yisro. What the chachomim
are saying is that Amalek itself learned nothing from its defeat, though
the lesson of the defeat was apparent to others who observed it.
Amalek’s defeat taught it nothing
because Amalek is a nation of scoffers. The scoffer, characteristically,
is impervious to chastisement. What we have yet to explain is how the behavior
of Amalek caused it to be categorized as a nation of scoffers.
Section 3 – Taking the True Measure of a Man
We are taught that all mockery is forbidden except as directed against
idol worship. Certainly, the license to scoff is extended to evil of any sort.
Why, therefore, did the chachomim seize upon idol worship to epitomize
instances where mockery is permitted?
The answer is contained in the
words of Rabbeinu Yonah on the posuk (Mishlei 27:21) “The
refining pot for silver, the furnace for gold and a man according to his praise”.
The simple explanation of this posuk is that the measure of a man is in
the manner that others praise him.
Rabbeinu Yonah, however, interprets the posuk
to mean that the measure of a man is determined by observing whom or what he
praises. These are the words of Rabbeinu Yonah: “If he praises worthy
acts and wise and righteous men we know that he is a good man and the root of
righteousness is within him… and though it may be that he harbors some hidden
transgressions, he is still one of the lovers of righteousness… And he who
praises repulsive deeds and extols the wicked is the confirmed evil-doer.”
In other words, if we set out
to determine a person’s character, the critical question is, where does he aim
his derision? We ask that question because the direction of a person’s scorn
stems from his sense of values; the more a man values something the more he
sneers at its opposite. So the answer to this question tells us what this
person really sets store by.
Consider two individuals, one
involved in Torah learning with application and industry, the second,
not at all involved in Torah learning. But the first individual, though
he displays diffidence in the presence of a wealthy man, stands his ground in
the presence of a Torah scholar. The second individual, in contrast,
behaves with humility and reserve in the company of a Torah scholar.
Rabbeinu Yonah tells us that in this situation
the first individual - who surpasses the second in terms of diligence in
learning - falls far short of him in terms of closeness to Torah, when
measured according to the standard of “man according to his praise”. The value
that a person attaches to Torah brings him closer to Torah than
the act of learning sans the value.
It is not at all unusual to
look at two men in mid-life and find that one, who dedicated his younger years
to Torah learning, regrets that he did not involve himself in business
matters, while the other, whose youth was spent on worldly affairs, is
remorseful over his past neglect of Torah learning. The former
individual may be well-versed in the entire Talmud, the latter may be a
complete ignoramus, but he is closer to Torah than the former. “A man according
to his praise.”
Rabbeinu Yonah’s power of praise is the
ability to assign primacy. Praise is no more nor less than an expression of
esteem. “A man according to his praise.”
Section 4 – Damned With No Praise
Judging a man according to his praise works only with respect to a person
who possesses a sense of values in the first place. If a person has such a
sense we can determine whether or not he lays stress on the proper things.
There is, however, a prior question to answer before we set about judging a man
according to his praise.
That is because some people
loath the very idea of praise; of assigning value to anything. They suffer from
the trait of acute cynicism. Cynicism will not tolerate value; it is nourished
by denigration. A sense of regard will assign value. Cynicism says that nothing
is of consequence.
The goal of true cynicism is
to find the chink in the armor of any structure of significance and thereby
demolish that structure entirely. Praise and cynicism are contrary forces.
Praise aspires to bring esteem to the world. Cynicism aspires to bring derision
to the world.
To judge a man “according to
his praise” two points must be ascertained. First, where does the man stand in
the battle between praise and cynicism? Second - and this point is only
relevant if the person stands on the side of praise in that battle – to what
does this person direct his praise?
Section 5 – To Kill a Mockery (with Mockery)
Ponder this: what is the most extreme example of man taking something
that is intended to serve the highest truth, and perverting it to serve the
most execrable falsehood? Without a doubt, the answer is idol worship. There is
no higher form of activity than worship. And there is nothing more false than
an idol. Admittedly, the battle between praise and cynicism within the idol
worshiper was won by praise, since any worship is a manifestation of praise.
However, his praise is antithetical to truth. Idol worship is, therefore, the
epitome of praise misdirected to evil ends.
That is why the chachomim
use idol worship to exemplify instances where mockery is permitted. One may,
without a doubt, scoff at any evil. But to apply cynicism against idol worship
is to use the force most antagonistic to praise against the greatest perversion
of praise. It is therefore natural for the worshiper of Hashem to reserve his
cynicism for idol worship.
Section 6 – Cynicism: Subversion of Value
The preceding section speaks of cynicism as applied positively, such as
against idol worship. There is, though, a fundamental difference between
positive and ordinary cynicism. Earlier, we described cynicism as the
subversion of value. This is true regardless of the area being mocked. Cynicism
is a destructive force. But ordinary cynicism unleashes this destructive
force against the very existence of value; we are left with nothing but
destruction. Cynicism directed against idol worship, in contrast, is the
outcome of attaching value to the opposite of idol worship. Scorn for evil
follows as a result of regard for good. Cynicism directed against idol worship
is best characterized as scorn developed as a byproduct of praise.
Externally the two forms of
cynicism appear similar but they differ greatly in their origins. Ordinary
cynicism is destruction for its own sake. Cynicism directed against idol
worship is constructive destruction.
The Mesilas Yesharim
writes that “a single sneer deflects one-hundred chastisements”. The source is
undoubtedly the Gemara which states that just as it is a mitzva to
rebuke when the message will be accepted, so is it a mitzva not to
rebuke when the message will not be accepted. The Gemara derives this
law is from the posuk “do not scold the cynic”. Now, there are many
possible reasons why an admonition might not be accepted. Why does the
explanation hinge on cynicism?
The answer lies in the concept
we have been discussing. The Gemara is not talking about a reprimand
unaccepted for this or that specific reason; there are untold possible
explanations for the rejection of a particular reprimand. Rather the Gemara
is talking about the general ability to accept or reject criticism. As a rule,
the Gemara says, cynicism precludes acceptance of criticism. To reproach
a person is to instill in him a sense of the importance of correcting that
which is awry. Against reproach, the human psyche throws up cynicism as the
first line of defense, for cynicism cannot tolerate importance of any sort. It
attempts to quash a reproach on the ground that nothing is important,
before the message of the reproach can be absorbed.
The dictum “a single sneer
deflects one-hundred chastisements” goes deeper than isolated instances of men
laughing off this or that reproof for this or that reason. It digs into the
soul to expose cynicism as the force that keeps chastisement from the soul.
Section 7 – Amalek: The Quintessential Cynic
Study the language of Rashi in parshas Zachor: “‘When they
encountered you [karcha] on the way’. The word karcha is used in
the sense of heat and cold [kar]. They (Amalek) cooled you down and
subdued the boiling. All the nations were afraid to war with you until this one
came and showed the way to the others. It may be compared to a boiling hot bath
into which no living creature could descend. A fool came along and jumped in;
though he was burned, he cooled the bath for others.”
The most significant aspect of
the Amalek affair was not that Amalek fought with Yisroel,
but that, with their fight, they cheapened the importance of Yisroel.
The chieftains of Edom, the noblemen of Moav, the inhabitants of Canaan,
all absorbed the lesson of the exodus from Egypt and the splitting of the sea.
The bath was boiling hot. Significance was on the rise. But Amalek
cannot abide significance. The essence of Yisroel is the power of
praise. The essence of Amalek is the power of denigration. The battle
lines are drawn. Amalek against Yisroel. Denigration against
praise.
With the birth of the nation Yisroel
the power to recognize value came into the world. The bath was boiling hot, and
the heat was a direct affront to Amalek’s essential character. So they
jumped into the bath and cooled it. The value embodied by Yisroel was
breached in an attempt to demolish value itself. This breach is the eternal
wellspring of cynicism. Man’s urge to cynicism is a drive to cool the boiling
hot bath.
The chachomim said that
“and the naive will become aware” refers to Yisro because the downfall
of Amalek was no lesson to Amalek. On the contrary, Amalek’s
very act of aggression was a rebellion against the whole idea of accepting a
lesson!
“Smite the scorner”: this
refers to the defeat of Amalek.” “And the naive will become aware”: this
refers to Yisro. Yisro did accept the lesson of Amalek’s defeat, but
such an acceptance is beyond Amalek’s capabilities. If Amalek
were capable of accepting the lesson, there would have been no Amalek in
the first place, since Amalek’s existence is predicated on eliminating
the effect of chastisement from the soul.
Amalek came by this trait from his grandfather,
Esav. As the Torah teaches us, Esav’s disgrace was not that he
sold his birthright, but that he plundered [bozaz] his birthright. Or,
in other words, he disparaged it. “Smite the scorner: this is Amalek.”
Section 8 – Death by Deaf Ear
We mentioned earlier that “in the end he will be destroyed forever” means
that although the End of Days epoch can generally repair the faults of the
non-Jewish nations, the nation of Amalek falls is irremediable. And
since, at the End of Days, the correction of faults is a precondition to
continued existence, the destruction of Amalek is inevitable.
The reason for this is now
clear. A rebuke demands that that which is corrupt be repaired. Even severe
corruption can be repaired, provided the corruption is not the sort that
attacks the very rebuke that attempts to repair it. Corruption of that sort is
never amenable to repair.
It should therefore be obvious
why the epoch of repair is the very epoch that signals the destruction of Amalek.
“In the end he will be destroyed forever.” And have we not seen that the
cynicism of Amalek stems from its act of “cooling the boiling bath” by
becoming the first to enter into battle with Yisroel? The posuk
therefore flows smoothly: “Amalek is first among nations, but in the end
he will be destroyed forever”. Because Amalek made itself “first among
nations” it has no future to enjoy. “In the end he will be destroyed forever”.
Section 9 – Keeping the Important in Sight
“Amalek
arrived and attacked Yisroel in Rephidim” (Shmos 17:8). The Mechilta
says that Yisroel was attacked because their hands became slack [rafu
y’dayhem] with regard to Torah.
Now, the phrase normally used
to denote the opposite of Torah learning is neglect of Torah [bitul
Torah]. What is the origin of this new phrase “their hands became slack
with regard to Torah?” Again, the answer is contained in the concept we
have been discussing. To slacken the hands means to lose sight of the
importance of the object with which the hands should be involved. When a man
loses sight of the importance of a thing, his hands become flaccid.
It is therefore particularly
apt that the chachomim coined the phrase “their hands became slack” in
the parsha of Amalek - whose essence is the derogation of
importance.
Individuals in the world of Torah
who wish to properly involve themselves in the study of Torah must
recognize that the mitzva of remembering the actions of Amalek
obligates them to stand in opposition to “hands becoming slack” with regard to Torah.
They must always be in a position of “hands strong with regard to Torah”,
or, put another way, the heart that seethes in recognition of the momentousness
and glory of Torah should never be permitted to cool.
An adaptation into English of the full text of Pachad
Yitzchok, Purim Maamar 1 can be obtained from the author at
eli@eliwillner.com.
|
