The Amalek – Paras Connection: Adapted from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l
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”.
What
is Amalek Doing Here?
Purim is coming and, as every child knows, Purim is when we celebrate our victory over the forces of Amalek. Yet the events of the Purim story took place during the galus, the exile, of Paras. We were subjects of the Persian kings, who ruled over Eretz Yisroel, and at whose pleasure we could – or could not – build the second Bais HaMikdash.
It behooves us
to examine how Amalek – a descendant of Edom, whose galus
we are currently in the midst of – insinuated itself into the much earlier galus
of Paras.
The Torah, in
the parsha of the Bris Bain Ha’besarim (Beraishis 15) alludes to the entire panoply of exiles with
which the Jewish nation will be subjected.
The kingdom of Yishmael
is notable by its absence from the list of the kingdoms that exiled Yisroel;
after all, Yisroel was subjugated by them for several generations. The Maharal
takes note of this omission in Ner Mitzva
and
he explains it as follows.
To qualify as
one of the four kingdoms prophesized in the Torah, one of two conditions has to
be met. Either rulership must be wrested by force from Jewish control, as was
the case with respect to Bavel, or rulership must pass from the hands of
a nation that took it from Jewish control by force, to another nation built on
the ruins of the first one, as was the case with respect to Paras and Yavan
(Greece). Yishmael is not counted among the four because it lacks
both of those two conditions; it did not take control of rulership by force,
nor did it inherit rulership from the ruins of a preceding kingdom.
Chazal taught us in Megilla 6a that there is a relationship of “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant” between Yaakov and Esav (see Rashi on Beraishis 25:33). “If someone, speaking about Yerushalayim and Rome (a reference to Esav) tells you that both are thriving, do not believe it. If they tell you that they are both destroyed, do not believe it. But if they tell you that one is thriving and the other destroyed, believe it.”
This
relationship was already in place when Rivka consulted Shem, who informed her
that “one kingdom will become mightier than the other kingdom” (Beraishis
25:23). Shem was telling her that the relationship between the kingdoms of
Yisroel and Edom would be inverse – “when one is ascendant, the other is
descendant”. This relationship does not pertain to Yishmael; his rise
does not depend on Yisroel’s fall.
Here is how we
must understand this state of affairs on a deeper level. It took the lapse of
three generations for the dross of profane to be filtered out of the lineage of
our forefathers. Avrohom fathered Yishmael and Yitzchok fathered Esav, both of
whom were unworthy. Only beginning with Yaakov was the dross expunged; none of
his children strayed.
Now, until kedusha
achieves a state of complete decontamination, it is tolerant, by definition, of
the presence of that which is tamei. At that point kedusha and tumah
are not in a “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant” relationship
since the presence of kedusha does not immediately bring about a purging
of tumah. They may coexist.
Only after kedusha
is completely absolved of any taint of tumah, then and only then are kedusha
and tumah diametric opposites, and only then can it be said that “when
one is ascendant, the other is descendant”; that each is built on the ruins of
the other.
But until kedusha
reaches that rarefied state of purity, the strength of the opposition between kedusha
and tumah is insufficient to cause the ascendant of the pair to bring
about the obliteration of the other of the pair. Only after kedusha achieves
that milestone does the opposition between those two forces become a
death-battle, such that the demise of one enlivens the other.
Thus the
prophecy of “one kingdom will become mightier than the other kingdom”, which is
tantamount, as Chazal explain, to the inverse relationship of “when one
is ascendant, the other is descendant, could only have been said about Yaakov and
Esav; the same inverse relationship could not have applied to Yitzchok and
Yishmael, because there was still some dross associated with Yitzchok, who
fathered not only Yaakov but also Esav – even though, certainly, Yishmael
opposed Yitzchok in the same way that Esav opposed Yaakov.
In that light
let us return to the words of the Maharal, who wrote that the kingdom of
Yishmael is not counted as one of the four kingdoms to which Yisroel was
exiled, even though it, too, subjugated Yisroel for several generations, since it
did not take control of rulership by force, nor did it inherit rulership from
the ruins of a preceding kingdom which took control of rulership by force. In
our terminology, that is the equivalent of saying that Yishmael’s subjugation
of Yisroel did not reach the level of “when one is ascendant, the other is
descendant”. Yishmael’s subjugation was oppression by force but it cannot be
said that the ascendancy of Yishmael was fueled by the downfall of Yisroel.
This explains
why our salvation from the oppression of Paras came about specifically through a reversal of fortunes, v’nahafoch
hu. Not only did Yisroel prevail, but we prevailed by way of the downfall
of our enemies. Why? Because Amalek, as represented by Haman, insinuated
itself into the picture, instigating our danger, and our battles with Amalek
always play out in a manner of “when one is ascendant, the other is descendant”,
since Amalek is a descendant of Esav.
The
King of Jew-Hatred
Preceding the chronicling of the Bris Bain Ha’besarim, the Torah, in Beraishis 14, relates the story of the war of the four kings against Avrohom. The Ramban explains – and this thought is similarly expressed by Chazal in Beraishis Rabbah 42:7 – that the four kings are a homiletic reference to the four kingdoms that are destined to oppress Yisroel.
One of the four
kings is called “Sidal, king of the nations” and the Ramban writes that
he is so called because he ruled over diverse nations. What is the significance
of the reference to “nations”? Which nation was king of the “nations”? The Medrash
explains that the “king” is actually a reference to Edom whose despotism
extended over the nations of the world. Edom earned this distinction
because all the kingdoms that preceded his were limited to one particular
location but Edom imposed its will over “nations” in general.
The
significance of Edom’s empire-building was that his antipathy toward
Yisroel also extended beyond the borders of his own land; his poisonous
incitement against the Jews was spread far and wide among other nations and he
propagandized the other nations to induce in them as well the toxic venom of
anti-Semitism.
In fact Edom
was so identified with this trait that, when enumerating the four kings, the
Torah refers to him as “Sidal, king of the nations” – as if to say that his
empire of hatred crossed all borders and had no boundaries.
The
Progression of Amalek’s Infiltration
If we want to pinpoint the beginnings of Edom’s incitement-spreading we would have to focus on the period of the exile of Paras. The entire Megillas Esther centers around Amalek’s incitement of Achashverosh against the Jews. Earlier in history, such as during the lifetime of Moshe, or during the epoch of the prophets, Amalek – a scion of Edom – directly waged war against Yisroel. Amalek’s interaction with Achashverosh was the first instance of Edom provoking a proxy – Achashverosh, king of Paras – into Jew-hatred.
At the time,
this innovation of evil was limited to one kingdom, Paras, but the
exiles become more onerous as they progress, so that in the fourth exile, which
we are currently in the midst of, there are no geographic limits to Edom’s
incitement; it spreads indiscriminately to all nations. “Sidal, king of the
nations”.
Let us trace
this phenomenon through the sequence of exiles. The first of the four, Bavel,
did not have Amalek participation. This was followed by the exile of Paras
which was a reflection of Amalek’s infiltration into a single other
nation. (The apparent absence of Amalek from galus Yavan is
discussed in Pachad Yitzchok, Chanukah Maamar 15.)
The final galus
of Edom reflects Amalek’s infiltration into every other nation.
The prevailing
theme of our exiles in general is the inverse relationship between Edom
and Yisroel, such that even when the nation oppressing us is not Edom,
Edom’s fingerprints are visible. This was especially the case with respect
to the galus of Paras – the first where Edom/Amalek “spread its
wings” over a non-Edom nation.
We daven
that just as Hashem saved us from that first galus exposure to Edom,
he save us now, when we are in the thick of the actual galus Edom, so
that we may again sing, “la’yehudim haysa orah, v’simcha, v’sasson,
v’yikar!”
