Parashath Tëtzavve (Exodus XXVIII,2-XXX,10) 3/2/12

A.

Our parasha continues the instructions concerning the Mishkan. Having completed the description of most of the Mishkan’s furniture, the discussion now turns to the production of the pure olive oil to be used in the mënora, the activities of the kohanim in tending the great lamp, and the garments to be worn by the kohanim whilst serving in the Mishkan, followed by their installation in that service.

I say “most” of the furniture, for after all this, suddenly: ועשית מזבח מקטר קטרת עצי שטים תעשה אתו: אמה ארכו ואמה רחבו ואמתים קמתו ממנו קרנתיו: וצפית אתו זהב טהור כו' (“And you will make an altar for the burning of incense; of shittim wood you will make it. An amma is its length and an amma its width, and two ammoth its height; from [its top], its horns. And you will cover it in pure gold....”; XXX, 1-3).

So, the question to be asked is: Why is this mizbah ha-zahav, this “golden altar” for incense, not included together with the other items intended to furnish the Mishkan which were described last week?

B.

In last week’s parasha we learnt that the Mishkan, and its later, permanent replacement in Yërushalayim, the Béyth ha-Miqdash, were Divinely conceived and ordered to constitute a model of the cosmos. Hence, Hazal proclaim that its erection was tantamount to a recreation of the universe (מדרש תנחומא פרשת פקודי סי' א'). For this reason, G-d said of Bëtzal’él ben Uri, tasked with the design’s execution, ואמלא אתו רוח אלקים בחכמה ובתבונה ובדעת וגו' (“And I filled him with the spirit of G-d, with wisdom [hochma] and with discernment [tëvuna] and with knowledge [da‘ath]....”; XXXI, 3), for, as King Shëlomo tells us, these are the three bases on which the universe was established: ד' בחכמה יסד ארץ כונן שמים בתבונה בדעתו תהומות נבקעו (“Ha-Shem with hochma founded the earth; He established the heavens with tëvuna; with His da‘ath were the depths split”; Proverbs III,20, וע"ע זוה"ק ח"ב רנ"א. ורל"א:). Hence, Hazal say, יודע הי' בצלאל לצרף אותיות שנבראו בהם שמים וארץ (“Bëtzal’él was knowledgeable in the combinations of letters by which the heavens and earth were created”; ברכות נ"ה:).

We further established that a human being, an adam, constitutes in himself a microcosmos, and that just as it is so, that the universe was brought into being in accordance with all the requirements of the Torah, as Hazal say; ,אסתכל קוב"ה באורייתא וברא עלמא (“The Holy One, Blessed is Hem looked into the Torah and created the universe”; בראשית רבה פ"א סי' ב'), and continues in existence only because Israel accepted the Torah and faith-fully observe it (התנה הקב"ה עם מעשה בראשית וא"ל אם ישראל מקבלים התורה אתם מתקיימין ואם לאו אני מחזיר אתכם לתהו ובהו [“The Holy One, Blessed is He made a condition at Creation: If Israel accept the Torah, you continue in existence; and if not, I return you to chaos!”; שבת פ"ח.], and: כה אמר ד' אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי [“Thus says Ha-Shem, If My covenant is not (in effect) by day and by night, I have not set in place the laws of heaven and earth”; Jeremiah XXXIII, 25), so it follows that there is likewise a direct correspondence between the Torah’s mitzvoth and every limb and organ of the human body, thus justifying their existence in the scheme of things.

Hence, the actual purpose of the miqdash was to serve as a focal point, establishing a feedback loop of the qëdusha generated by each adam mi-Yisra’él’s observance of the Torah’s mitzvoth, redistributing the qëdusha back to Israel, so that it would raise their level yet higher, in a continuous exchange intended to produce an ever increasing spiral of sanctity, bringing about the hashra’ath ha-Shëchina, the infusion of the Divine Presence into the heart of the universe, the miqdash itself.

As a model of the universe in miniature, a microcosmos, each individual member of Israel ideally experiences his own hashra’ath ha-Shëchina as a benefit of the feedback loop, a fact which finds subtle allusion in the Torah’s wording: ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם (“And they will make for Me a miqdash and I will dwell bë-thocham”; XXV8). The lat word is translatable as “in their midst”, but there are other ways to say that (e.g., bë-qirbam, beineihem, beinotham), which leads us to consider the alternate interpretation: “And I shall dwell within them”.

C.

The Sforno, in his comment on XXX, 1, notes that the above verse is immediately followed by: ככל אשר אני מראה אתך את תבנית המשכן ואת תבנית כליו וכן תעשו (“According to all that I show you, the plan of the Mishkan and the plan of its accoutrements [kélim], and so shall you do”). From this juxtaposition it follows that the constituent parts and accessories of the Mishkan profoundly represent the composition both of the greater cosmos and of the microcosmos, such that their contemplation and proper use prepares the way both for the individual and the collective hashra’ath ha-Shëchina.

G-d Himself implies this when He says to Moshe, concerning the kapporeth, the lid of the aron qodesh: ונועדתי לך שם ודברתי אתך מעל הכפרת אשר על ארון העדת את כל אשר אצוה אותך אל בני ישראל (“And I shall appear to you there at appointed times, and speak to you from atop the kapporeth which is upon the aron ha-‘éduth with everything which I shall command you for the bënei Yisra’él”; XXV, 22), which Moshe later passed on to Israel: זה הדבר אשר צוה ד' תעשו וירא אליכם כבוד ד' (“...This is the thing: What Ha-Shem has commanded you should do, and the glory of Ha-Shem will appear to you”; Leviticus IX, 6).

But not the golden altar; it is separated from the other kélim because it does not share their purpose. Rather, says the Sforno, its purpose is לכבד את הא-ל יתברך אחרי בואו לקבל ברצון עבודת עמו בקרבנות הבקר והערב (“to honor G-d after His arrival to accept favorably His people’s service through the sacrifices of the morning and evening”; cf. XXX, 7-8).

D.

‘Ad kan the Sforno. If the purpose of the kélim discussed in parashath Tëruma is the profound symbolism and emulation of the features of both cosmos and microcosmos to bring about the infusion and retention of the Divine Presence, the symbolism of the mizbah ha-zahav, I believe, reveals its purpose in the grand scheme of things. Our verse tells us that it is a mizbah miqtar qëtoreth, and the Talmud explains this phrase: מתקטר בקטורת אין כתיב כאן אלא מזבח מקטר קטרת מלמד שהמזבח הזה מקטיר את הקטורת (“‘smoking with incense’ [mithqattér bi-qtoreth] is not written here, but miqtar qëtoreth, teaching that this altar causes the incense to smoke [maqtir eth ha-qëtoreth]”; ירושלמי חגיגה פ"ג ה"ח), which the Torah Tëmima explains: שהי' נקטר באש של מעלה בלי סיוע אש של מטה (“that it would be made to smoke by a supernal fire, without support from a lowly [earthly] fire”; וע"ע קרבן העדה ופני משה שם בירושלמי).

The nature of qëtoreth is that the smoke spirals upward, and so, it seems to me, it is the perfect symbol for the ever-higher level of qëdusha being generated by the feedback loop, as the tzaddiqim first provide their input through (as the Alsheich, quoted by the ‘Arvei Nahal, observed on last week’s parasha) their performance of mitzvoth with exemplary love, awe, and wholehearted willingness, bringing about the gilluy ha-Shë-china and redistributing this enhanced level of qëdusha, induced by the supernal fire brought down with the gilluy ha-Shëchina throughout the nation, creating a wave of qëdusha spiraling ever upward.

In short, the mizbah ha-zahav serves to represent the ideal functioning of the perpetual qëdusha machine which the holy nation and the Miqdash together are meant to constitute.

Parshath Tëtzavve (Exodus XXVII,20-XXX,10) 2/11/11

A.

ואתה הקרב את אהרן אחיך ואת בניו אתו מתוך בני ישראל לכהנו לי אהרן נדב ואביהוא אלעזר ואתמר בני אהרן: (“And you, bring near [haqrév] Aharon your brother and his sons with him from amidst the bënei Yisra’él to install as kohanim to Me [lë-chahano li], Aharon, Nadav and Avihu’, El‘azar and Ithamar, sons of Aharon”; XXVIII, 1).

This verse (which, as Rashi tells us, was actually stated after all the work on the Mishkan was completed, and therefore after the incident of the golden calf, which the Torah reserves for next week’s parasha) contains a couple of grammatical oddities which cry out for comment.

The first is the word haqrév. In order to demonstrate why the usage is odd, consider a comment of the Këli Yaqar on our verse: הוסיף כאן לשון "ואתה" לומר לך שמצד מעשה העגל נתרחק אהרן כמו שנפסלו בכורי ישראל ומשה קרבו בתפלתו כמו שנאמר "ובאהרן התאנף ד' מאד להשמידו ואתפלל גם בעד אהרן בעת ההיא" וגו' (“[G-d] added the term vë-atta [‘and you’] to tell you that because of the incident of the calf, Aharon was distanced [from G-d] just as Israel’s first-born were delegitimized, and Moshe brought him near [qirëvo] through his prayer, as it is said, ‘And with Aharon Ha-Shem was very angry to destroy him [lë-hashmido], and I prayed also for Aharon at that time’ [Deuteronomy IX, 20]”).

The above explanation indicates the anomaly to anyone possessed of a חוש חי לשפה העברית (“a living sense of the Hebrew language”). “Near” in the Holy Language is qarov; “to approach,” the verb in the qal or “simple” conjugation which embraces the basic meaning of the root, is qarav. “To bring close” i.e. establish (or re-establish) a state of closeness, is the factitive pi‘él, which the Këli Yaqar uses in the above quotation, qirëvo, “he brought him close.” The word in our verse, haqrév, is in the causative hif‘il conjugation, and usually means “bring close” with regard to qorbanoth, “sacrifices” (also formed on the same root). Why is it used here?

The second question concerns the infinitive lë-chahano. The word is, again, in the pi‘él, and presumably means “to install as a kohén, to create a state of këhunna,” kohén being the normal form of the durative participle of a presumed verb kahan (which does not occur in the Biblical corpus as a verb); the durative participle is often used to refer to a person performing the function of the verb, e.g., shomér, “guard,” from the verb shamar, “to guard,” or shohét, “slaughterer,” from shahat, “slaughter.”

The anomaly is the suffix –o. One might, at first blush, imagine it to be the normal third person masculine singular suffix (“him”) used, e.g., by the Këli Yaqar in the words qirëvo and lë-hashmido quoted above; but the actual direct object of the infinitive is plural, consisting of Aharon and his sons. Hence, no pronominal suffix would appear to be needed, and if one were, it ought to be the third person masculine plural form, -am, rather than –o.

The Even ‘Ezra explains the usage as follows: וי"ו לכהנו לי נוסף כוי"ו "חיתו שדי", "בנו בעור" (“The –o of lë-chahano li is extra, like the –o of hayëtho sadai [‘the wildlife of my fields’; Psalms CIV, 11], bëno Vë‘or [‘son of Bë‘or’; Numbers XXIV, 3]”). The Even ‘Ezra is suggesting that this is an example of the rather rare suffixed sëmichuth, which as a rule occurs in Hebrew poetry (hence, the examples he cites, from the Book of Psalms and Bil‘am’s prophetic trance; but cf. Genesis I, 24 for a rare instance of its occurrence in prose). It is the case that directed infinitives with the dative prefix l- are generally found in the sëmichuth or construct form, a form which indicates dependence on one or more following words, but the more common form of this infinitive is lë-chahén, without the suffix (cf., e.g., XXIX, 1). Clearly, the unusual suffixed form is intended to tell us something; but what?

B.

To consider the last question first, the Ba‘al ha-Turim points out that our rare form in fact occurs three times in quick succession in our parasha, here and in vv. 3 and 4; the reason, he infers, is כנגד בית ראשון ובית שני ולעתיד (“apposite the First Temple and the Second Temple, and for the future”); in other words, it establishes the institution of the këhunna forever, from that time forward.

This in fact parallels an observation in the Sifrei: בכל מקום שנאמר "לי" קיים לעולם ולעלמי עולמים. בכהנים הוא אומר "וכהנו לי". בלויים הוא אומר "והיו לי הלויים". בישראל הוא אומר "כי לי בני ישראל עבדים" וגו' (“In every place that it is said, li [“to/for Me”], [the subject] exists for ever and ever and ever. Concerning the kohanim He says, ‘they serve as kohanim for Me’ [XXVIII, 41]; concerning the Lëviyyim He says, ‘and the Lëviyyim will be li’ [Numbers VIII, 14]; concerning Israel, He says ‘for li are the bënei Yisra’él servants’ [Leviticus XXV, 55]....”; בהעלותך פסקא ל"ד בגירסת הגר"א).

The Nëtziv comments on the above: וידענו שלעולם יכהנו בני אהרן בביה"מ ולא זולת דכתיב בהו "ברית עולם". וגם התורה וכל מצותי' לא יבטלו לעולם, הרי "לי" דכתיב בכהנים קיים לעולמי עד. ואע"פ שאינם מכהנים מעת חורבן ביהמ"ק מכ"מ עיקר קדושתם ממעל לעולם לא נעדר כמש"כ ולכן גם היום קדושתן עליהם בכל מצות כהונה (“And we know perfectly well that the sons of Aharon will serve forever in the Temple and no-one else, for it is written concerning them ‘an eternal covenant’ [cf., e.g., Numbers XXV, 13]. And also the Torah and all its mitzvoth will never be annulled, for “li” which is written about the kohanim exists forever and ever. And even though they are not serving ever since the Temple’s destruction, nonetheless the root of their sanctity from Above [‘iqqar qëdushatham mi-ma‘al] never disappears, as I have written. And therefore, today, too, their sanctity is upon them with all the mitzvoth of këhunna”; עמק הנצי"ב שם בספרי דה"מ בכהנים).

All of the Torah’s mitzvoth concerning the institution of këhunna remain in effect, whether present-day kohanim have the opportunity to perform them or not; their qëdusha remains unchanged. It is this permanent ‘iqqar qëdushatham mi-ma‘al which provides the key to answering our first question.

C.

The Or ha-Hayyim was also bothered by the apparently anomalous use of haqrév. To understand his explanation, we begin by directing our attention to the verses immediately following ours. It becomes evident that the sanctification of the kohanim and their installation in the këhunna was accomplished through the series of eight special garments to be made for them. The Torah calls them בגדי קדש לאהרן אחיך לכבוד ולתפארת, “garments of sanctity for Aharon your brother, for glory [kavod] and splendor [tif’ereth]”; v. 2). It is in the course of the initial specification and enumeration of these garments that our unusual infinitive lë-chahano recurs.
The eight bigdei këhunna are divided into two groups, four made of white linen and four of gold thread. Continues the Or ha-Hayyim: על פי דבריהם ז"ל כי השמונה בגדים ד' של בגדי לבן ירמזו על ד' אותיות של שם הוי"ה וד' בגדי זהב ירמזו על ד' אותיות של שם אדנ"י, ודע כי שם הוי"ה ב"ה יתיחס אליו כינוי התפארת כידוע ושם אדנ"י יתיחס אליו כינוי הכבוד כו' סדר הכתוב סדר דרגות הקדושה זו למעלה מזו כו' וצוה ד' לעשות שמונה בגדים שבאמצעותם יתכפרו פגמים אשר יסבבו בני אדם אשר יגיעו למקום עליון וגו' (“According to the words of Hazal [עיי' זוה"ק ח"ב רכ"ז.] that [of] the eight garments, the four white garments allude to the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, and the four golden garments allude to the four letters of the name Ad-nai; and know that the Tetragrammaton is associated with the term tif’ereth [שם שם רנ"ה:], as is known, and the name Ad-nai is associated with the term kavod [שם ח"א כ"ה. ]... The order of [the words in] the verse is the order of the ranks of sanctity, one higher than the other... And Ha-Shem commanded to make eight garments by means of which defects which originate with human beings and which reach supernal places can be corrected....”). He then goes on to note that the Talmud explains that the eight garments have the effect of correcting eight categories of transgression to be found amongst the bënei Yisra’el [ע"ע זבחים פ"ח:].

Hence, the difference between the factitive qirév and causative hiqriv is that the first term establishes a state of physical proximity in this world, and the second, a state of metaphysical proximity between this world and the next, appropriate to qorbanoth as well as the ‘iqqar qëdushatham mi-ma‘al of the kohanim who administer them.

D.

Why was Aharon singled out for this duty rather than Moshe?

The Otzar ha-Torah offers a suggestion which meshes well with the passage from the Këli Yaqar quoted above: A leader, he suggests, who is to serve as an example for people to emulate should be perceived as one of them, lest they imagine that the ideal is too lofty, unattainable by ordinary men. Aharon was a very great man in his own right, a scholar and a prophet, but Moshe was unique, as the Torah itself attests: ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה אשר ידעו ד' פנים אל פנים: (“And there has never arisen in Israel another prophet like Moshe whom Ha-Shem knew face to face”; Deuteronomy XXXIV, 10). The fact that Aharon required Moshe’s intervention as much as anyone else in the aftermath of the golden calf incident, as we have seen, made him much more a man of the people than his exalted and illustrious brother.

And one thing more: The Mishna tells us, הוי כתלמידיו של אהרן אוהב שלום ורודף שלום אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה (“Be like Aharon’s students, a lover of peace and pursuer of peace, loving people and bringing them close to Torah”; אבות פ"א מי"ב), on which Rabbi ‘Ovadya of Bartenura comments further, following Avoth dë-Rabbi Nathan, כשהי' רואה שני בני אדם מתקוטטים הי' הולך לכל אחד מהם שלא מדעת חבירו ואומר לו ראה חברך איך הי' מתחרט ומכה את עצמו על שחטא לך והוא אמר לי שאבוא אליך שתמחול לו ומתוך כך כשהיו פוגעים זה בזה היו מנשקים זה את זה (“when he would see two people quarreling he would go to each of them without the other’s knowledge and say to him, 'See your friend, how he regrets and beats himself because he sinned against you, and he told me to come to you so that you will forgive him,' so that when they would bump into one another they would kiss one another”). A man of such sensitivity, well aware of the strains and tensions under which his fellows labor, is the ideal candidate to correct those “defects [in the administration of the cosmos] which originate with human beings, and which reach into supernal places.”

Parshath Tëtzavveh/Zachor (Exodus XXVII,20-XXX,10; Deuteronomy XXV,17-19) 2/26/10

A.

Our parasha continues to detail internal aspects of the Mishkan and of the service which was to be performed there. If all of these commandments would be carried out properly ונעדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבדי: וקדשתי את אהל מועד ואת המזבח ואת אהרן ואת בניו אקדש לכהן לי: ושכנתי בתוך בני ישראל והייתי להם לאלקים: וידעו כי אני ד' אלקיהם אשר הוצאתי אתם מארץ מצרים לשכני בתוכם אני ד' אלקיהם: (“And I shall keep appointments with the bënei Yisra’él there, and it shall become holy through my kavod. And I shall sanctify the Ohel Mo‘ed and the altar, and Aharon and his sons shall I sanctify to function for Me. And I shall dwell amongst the bënei Yisra’él and I shall become their G-d. And they will know that I am Ha-Shem their G-d Who brought them out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell amongst them; I am Ha-Shem their G-d”; XXIX, 43-46).

The implication is that the construction of the Mishkan (and the later Béyth ha-Miqdash) constituted a major node in history, and that the entire previous history of Israel, including the crucible of the Egyptian exile which had separated the dross from the pure, shining metal illustrative of Israel’s mettle (cf. Exodus X, 22, Rashi ad loc.) was to create the ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש, the “kingdom of kohanim and holy nation” (ibid., XIX, 6) fit that the Shëchina, the Divine Presence, could safely be resident in their midst.

Nonetheless, Hazal tell us, Moshe received a warning: אל תקרי "בכבדי" אלא "במכבדיי" ודבר זה אמר הקב"ה למשה ולא ידעו עד שמתו בני אהרן כיון שמתו בני אהרן אמר לו משה אהרן אחי לא מתו בניך אלא להקדיש שמו של הקב"ה (“Read not bi-chvodi [“through My glory”] but bi-mchubbadai [‘by those honored by Me’]; and this thing was said to Moshe and he did not know [who was meant] until Aharon’s sons died [Leviticus X, 2]; when Aharon’s sons died, Moshe told him, Aharon my brother, your sons died only to sanctify the name of the Holy One, Blessed is He”; זבחים קט"ו:). Moshe is refering to this revelation when he tells Aharon, הוא אשר דבר ד' לאמר בקרובי אקדש (“This is what Ha-Shem spoke, to say, By those close to Me shall I be sanctified”; ibid. 3).

The Or ha-Hayyim suggests that this “sanctification” was necessary לצד שאני מזמן שכינתי לבני חוששני מפרצת גדר ומיעוט כבוד מהם לזה צריך לקדשו בקרובי כדי שיראו ממקדשי וגו' (“since I [G-d] am appointing My Presence for My sons, I fear lest they drop their guard or commit lèse majesté; for this reason, it was necessary to sanctify [the Miqdash] through those close to Me, in order that [the bënei Yisra’él] be wary of My Miqdash....”). The Or ha-Hayyim goes on to say that the reason for the repetition of אני ד' אלקיהם, “I am Ha-Shem their G-d”, is to underscore that the relationship is permanent, even if the Shëchina is not at the moment resident in the midst of Israel (ע"ע ש"ך על התורה והעמק דבר שגם הם אומרים כעין זה ).

The Shlah ha-qadosh (in parshath Va-Yéshev) tells us that there is an intimate connection between the season and the parashoth read at that time. There must therefore be some connection between our parasha and parshath Zachor. With the foregoing in mind, what might it be?

B.

The last shabbath before Purim is called shabbath Zachor because of our second reading, which begins זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק בדרך בצאתך ממצרים (“Remember what ‘Amaléq did to you on the way, as you were leaving Egypt“), and ends תמחה את זכר עמלק מתחת השמים אל תשכח (“You shall erase the mention of ‘Amaléq from under the heavens; you shall not forget”). Many people have the custom of reciting this passage as one of the Shésh Zëchiroth, the “Six Remembrances,” each morning after Shaharith. Purim celebrates the foiling of the evil plot of Haman, a lineal descendant of the last ‘Amaléqi king (cf. Esther III, 1 and I Samuel XIV, 4-9).

What, exactly, had ‘Amaléq done to earn G-d’s eternal enmity? Our passage contains the key phrase asher qorcha ba-derech, an example of the creative ambiguity which sometimes characterizes the Torah and frustrates translators. As Rashi ad loc. notes, the verb qorcha could be derived either from the root quf-vav-réysh, in which case the phrase means “who cooled you down on the way,” or it could be derived from the root quf-réysh-hé, in which case it could mean something like “who defiled you on the way” (from the word qeri), or “who happened upon you on the way” (based on the word miqreh). The latter case may be understood as indicative of ‘Amaléq’s core atheistic philosophy, that the universe is governed by random, purposeless chance. As the name of the impending holiday, Purim (“Lots”) tells us, Haman’s preferred method of determining the date for hatching his plot was the casting of lots (cf. Esther III, 7). Plainly, Haman subscribed to the philosophy of his ancestral culture (עיי' ספרי כי תצא פיסקא פ"ו, זוה"ק ח"ג רפ"א:).

Either of these, of course, was inimical to the entire purpose of the enterprise creating the mamlecheth kohanim vë-goy qadosh who were intended to reside around the place אשר יבחר ד' אלקיכם בו לשכן שמו שם (“where Ha-Shem your G-d would choose to make His name resident”; Deuteronomy XII, 11).

But ‘Amaléq was liquidated long ago. Try as we might, we cannot find ‘Amaléq on a map or globe; their capital appears in no gazetteer. So what is the Torah exhorting us to do?

C.

“Amaléq make their first appearance in opposition to Israel in parshath Bë-Shallach, where Moshe declares: כי יד על כס קה מלחמה לד' בעמלק מדר דר (“For hand on G-d’s throne [kés Qah], there is war between Ha-Shem and ‘Amaléq from generation [to] generation”; Exodus XVII, 16, Rashi et Even ‘Ezra ad loc.). Rashi comments further: מהו "כס" ולא נאמר "כסא" ואף השם נחלק לחצי נשבע הקב"ה שאין שמו שלם ואין כסאו שלם עד שימחה שמו של עמלק כולו וכשימחה שמו יהי' השם שלם והכסא שלם שנאמר "האויב תמו חרבות לנצח" זהו עמלק שכתוב בו "ועברתו שמרה נצח" "וערים נתשת אבד זכרם המה" מהו אומר אחריו? "וד' לעולם ישב" – הרי השם שלם – "כונן למשפט כסאו" – הרי כסאו שלם (“Why [does it say] kés rather than kissé’ [the normal spelling of the word with final alef], and the [Divine] Name [i.e. the Tetragrammaton] is also split in half [only the initial yud and hé are written]? The Holy One, Blessed is He, has sworn that His Name is not whole and His throne is not whole until the name of ‘Amaléq has been erased completely, and when his name is erased, the Divine Name will be whole and the throne whole, as it is said. ‘Enemy, the wastes are gone forever [la-netzah; Psalms IX, 7] – this is ‘Amaléq, concerning whom it is written, ‘And His wrath is preserved forever [netzah’; Amos I,11]; ‘And the cities You uprooted, their memory is lost’ [Psalms, ibid., 8] and what does it say afterwards? ‘And Ha-Shem sits forever’ – so the [Divine] Name is whole – ‘and prepares His throne for judgment’ [Psalms, ibid.] – and His throne is whole”).

Hence we see that ‘Amaléq appears to have some potency still; “liquidation” did not constitute “eradication”; after all, Haman was not a citizen of some ‘Amaléqi state, but is counted a member of the tribe nonetheless.

D.

The zecher of ‘Amaléq, it seems, is the perpetuation of the ‘Amaléqi Weltanschauung, the atheistic conception of a random, purposeless world. So long as that remains current, so long as there is not universal recognition of the Creator of the universe, G-d’s reign over the universe is incomplete. The unification of G-d’s Name is thus a priority of Israel’s mission in the world, in testimony of which many people proclaim, before performing some mitzva, לשם יחוד קודשא בריך הוא ושכינתי' בדחילו ורחימו (“for the sake of the unity of the Holy One, Blessed is He and His Presence, with awe and love....”), and the Mahzor Vitry explains the congregational response to Qaddish, Yëhe’ Shëmeih rabba mëvorach (“May His great Name be blessed....”) שזו תפלה שאנו מתפללין למלא שמו כדכתיב "כי יד על כס קה" וכו' ופירושו כך שיהא שמי"ה שם קה רבא כלומר שאנו מתפללין שיהא שמו גדול ושלם (“that this is a prayer which we pray to fill out His Name, as it is written, ‘For hand on throne....’, and its meaning is that the Name Qah [a pun on the spelling of the Aramaic word shëmaih] be great, i.e. that we are praying that His Name will be great and whole”; ל' תוספות, ברכות ג: דה"מ ועונין אבל עיי' עד הסוף דפליגי בי' תוספות).

This tiqqun or “corrective,” especially in light of Rashi’s comment supra, finds support elsewhere in the Talmud: כל העונה אמן יהא שמי' רבא מברך בכל כחו קורעין לו גזר דינו שנאמר "בפרוע פרעות בישראל בהתנדב עם ברכו ד' " מ"ט פרוע פריות? משום דברכו ד' (“Anyone who answers, 'Amén yëhé Shëmeih...' with all his strength has his [evil] decree torn up, as it is said, ‘At the nullification of dangers in Israel, when the people voluntarily bless Ha-Shem’ [Judges V, 2]. Why are the dangers nullified? Because they bless Ha-Shem”; שבת קי"ט:, עיי' רש"י שם).

This, then, is the connection between our parasha, parshath Zachor, and the season. Haman’s perpetuation of ‘Amaléq’s worldview is an example of how the zecher ‘Amaléq still works to frustrate the Divine intention of permanently establishing residence in this world, “making His Name resident” here below. Faithful Israel works to magnify and unify His Name, and eradicate the legacy of ‘Amaléq. When that legacy is gone, as Yëhoshua‘ bin Nun tells us in the magnificent prayer which he authored, the ‘Aleinu recited today at the end of every service, ביום ההוא יהי' ד' אחד ושמו אחד, “On that day, Ha-Shem will be one and His Name one.” (עיי' תשובת רב האי גאון המובא בספר יד נאמן).