Rabbi's Derasha

Now we’ve reached the Shabbat of Hate.  A book in the late 60s about the mob in New York was called, The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.  That’s what these kooks are like.  I received a Dvar Torah by email from a local periodical last week that called last Shabbat Parashat Tetzaveh and Zachor.  The anti-Semites must be reading that periodical.  

But this is the real Shabbat of Hate.  The ideas of Amalek are still around even if no physical Ameleki can be identified.  I want to talk about the basis of Amalek and then go to one of the more important manifestations.

Amalek stems from Esav; he is the distillation of Esav.  The Midrash says at the naming of Esav that this should be understood as “HaShav” (the one in vain).  This is wordplay for the Midrash -- the Ayin switches with a Hei, and the Sin switches with a Shin.  What is the Midrash trying to convey?  When we read the 10 commandments, the word Shav appeared twice in one verse: Do not take Hashem’s name in vain (Shav) and there will be no cleaning up after the one who takes His name in vain (Shav).  The Aramaic translation does not use the same word for both appearances of “Shav.”  It says Shikra, a lie, and it translates the other appearance as Magena, or “nothing” -- what we normally call “in vain.”  
 
The difference between a lie and something that is in vain can be seen in the taking of the wrong kinds of oaths.  If one swears that one did an action in the past that one did not, in fact, do (I was in school when I was not), that is a lie.  But if one swears about something that is either obviously true or obviously false {that a book is a book or that a book is a dollar), then that is simply in vain.  Something in vain is without purpose -- it does not advance any point of view at all.  

Amalek is that latter type of Shav, about wiping out a sense of purpose.  That is why Amalek attacks while one is “B’Derech,” or on the way.  It seeks to interrupt one who has a mission or purpose.  This is different than the arguments or viewpoints of other nations.  Amalek does not challenge that the Jewish people had certain events in the past.  Other nations might do that by denying that the Jews were in Egypt or were at Har Sinai.  That would be an attack based on an accusation of falsehood.  Amalek concedes the past -- it knows exactly where the Jewish people come from and where they are headed.  It just does not want them to get there.      

Among the most effective tools Amalek uses is Letzanut, or a scoffing laughter.  There is no greater weapon against purpose or meaning than to undermine it with humor.  This is why the Talmud is so careful about Letzanut.  The only type of scoffing that is permitted is that which is directed at Avoda Zara, idol worship.  Because idol worship has no ultimate purpose, it is the proper target of Letzanut. This makes it harder to come up with a Purim Spiel.  It’s easier to attack Jewish targets.  But the world is still full of things which are fair game.  There’s still plenty to make fun of even if holy things are off the list.  

There are many ways to try to interrupt the Jewish people.  The attack from Amalek was also a literal attack on life and limb.  During the war, R’ Soloveitchik recalled that people sidled up to him in the train between Boston and New York to tell him that what was happening in Europe was just a fulfillment of the curse put on the Jews long ago.  “Give it up,” they told him.  We know about that kind of attempt to interrupt us.
​​​​​​​
But there can be other attacks. The poison of Letzanut can also be effective.  More sophisticated, more civil, but effective nonetheless at rendering our efforts vain.