Zochor No Mercy

The purpose of Parshas Zochor is clear: once a year we are meant to remind ourselves of the destructive role that Amalek plays in our lives. To that end, Chazal we Misaken that we Lein the story of Amalek’s attack on Bnei Yisroel in the Midbar as Maftir, and with it the dictate of “Zochor…Lo Sishkach”. The corresponding Haftoah comes from Sefer Shmuel, and tells about the Milchama waged by Shaul Hamelech against Amalek, led at the time by Agag. The connection between the Haftorah and the Shabbos is clear, but we cannot see this story as merely a matter of historical record—it would seem to have a much more important role.

Chazal tell us: “Ain Shemo Shalem V’Ain Kiso Shalem Ad ShYimcha Shemo Shel Amalek”, the Shem Hashem cannot be complete, and His ultimate glory restored, until Amalek is eradicated. This being the case, the destruction of Amalek and his influences would seem to take a very high precedence in our goals as a nation. The only time, however, that this was attempted was by Shaul, as we Lein in this week’s Haftorah. Although he was ultimately unsuccessful, perhaps we can look at these Pessukim as something of a guidebook, through which we can learn how to approach and even conquer Amalek in our lives.

If we wish to learn how to defeat Amalek, it might be helpful to look at the way that Shaul was instructed to do exactly that.

At the beginning of the Haftorah, Shmuel comes to Shaul and gives him a very direct instruction: “Atah Lech V’Hikisa Es Amalek V’Hacharamtem Es Kol Asher Lo.” Shaul was told to go and smite Amalek, treating all their possesions as Cherem. This destruction was to be all-encompassing: “M’Ish Ad Isha M’Ollel V’Ad Yonek”. The army of Bnei Yisroel was to kill all Amalekim—men, women and children. In fact, even the animals were to be slaughtered, “M’Shor V’Ad Seh”. Rashi explains that this step was necessary because the Amalakim were able to transform themselves into animals, and would then be able to escape if the animals were spared.

There is one other directive issued by the Navi in that Passuk, however, that seems a bit out of place. Within his explanation of the mission, Shmuel tells Shaul: “V’Lo Sachmol Alav”, you should not have mercy on Amalek. Why was this necessary? There is a Mitzvah D’Oraysa to destroy Amalek: “Macha Timche Es Zecher Amalek”, that applies to each and every Yid. Why would Shmuel think that Shaul would in fact have Rachmanus on Amalek in a way that would prevent him from completing his job? The imperative not to have Chemla upon Amalek seems unnecessary—why was it included?

Radak explains that Shmuel’s words were, in fact, quiet prescient. The Passuk later on tells us “VaYachamol Shaul V’HaAm Al Agag V’Al Metiv HaTzon V’HaBakar”. Shaul and Bnei Yisroel did in fact have Rachmanus on Agag, as well as some of the livestock—which may have in fact been other Amalekim. The words “V’Lo Sachmol Alav” therefore served as a clear warning, preventing Shaul from using his feelings as an explanation for his actions.

The words of the Radak are based on a Medrash in the Peshichta to Esther Rabba which says that Shmuel predicted the downfall of Shaul: “Azalta Zaka V’Ases Chayava V’Chasta Aloi”. Shaul left to battle innocent, and returned guilty, for he had mercy on Amalek. These actions, concludes the Medrash, had consequences: Haman, who caused us so much grief, was descended from Agag and came about only because of Shaul’s Rachmanus.

The Medrash, and the way that the Radak explains our Passuk, bring about another important question: how did Shmuel know that this was a risk? Shmuel seems to warn Shaul not to have Chemla because he knew that it was a possibility. And, we see that this is in fact where Shaul faltered, on his level. Why is this the case? What is it about attacking Amalek that brings with it a risk of Chemla, such that Shmuel felt it necessary to explicitly warn Shaul “V’Lo Sachmol Alav”?

To answer this question, it would perhaps be helpful to understand what emotion is described by the word Chemla. After all, we know that there are many words in Lashon Hakodesh to describe feelings of mercy or pity, and the Navi here uses the term Chemla in both cases—when Shaul is warned and when he stumbles. What is Chemla, and how might it apply to Amalek?

Although the term “Chemla” is used a few times in Sefer Beraishis, the first time in the Torah that we see a human being as actually having these feelings, is in Parshas Shemos. After Bas Pharaoh extracted Moshe from the water, the Torah tells us: “V’Tiftach VaTerehu Es Hayeled V’Hinei HaNaar Bocheh VaTachmol Alav”. She opened up the cloths in which Moshe was wrapped, and he was crying, and she felt Chemla towards him. We must assume that the word “VaTachmol” was chosen specifically here, as opposed to other terms, and try to understand why.

Many Meforshim point out that the Passuk uses the word “Yeled” and “Naar” with regard to Moshe, but these terms generally refer to different ages: a Yeled is younger than a Naar. Sforno explains that in fact Moshe was a Yeled, but Bas Pharaoh noticed certain qualities that were closer to a Naar. This, continues Sforno, indicated a certain propensity for Shleimus and led to the Chemla that she felt: “VaTachmol Alav Sheyihiyeh Vlad Na’eh U’Muchan L’Shleimus KaZeh Nizrak LaYeor”. The Chemla was because she saw that such a beautiful child, who was clearly unique and destined for greatness, was almost lost to the river. The Chemla of Bas Pharaoh, then, was the result of her recognizing the special qualities of the child she had rescued.

Malbim, on this Passuk, explains that this is in fact the definition of Chemla. He lists three terms used to describe compassion: Chamal, Chusa and Rachamim, and each has its own cause. For example, when someone feels sorry for the plight of another, on a very human level, that is called “Rachamim”. If, however, those feeling are brought on by a recognition of the inherent value of the subject, “Tiv HaDavar B’Atzmuso”, and the realization that something valuable might be lost, that is called “Chemla”.

Bas Pharaoh recognized that Moshe Rabbeinu was “U’Muchan L’Shleimus”, and she did not wish for such a valuable life to be wasted, and so her feelings of compassion are aptly described with the words “VaTachmol Alav”.

This, in turn, may have been the warning to Shaul Hamelech. Amalek has a way to make himself look important, even pure of intentions. There is therefore a real risk that when we encounter him, we will find ourselves assigning value to his existence: perhaps his contributions to society are impressive, perhaps he offers some sort of value to our lives. Shmuel knew that this was possible and so he warned Shaul: “V’Lo Sachmol”. If you see Amalek as a Davar Yakar, you will fall into the trap of Chemla, and be unable to complete your mission.

We see that this is in fact what occurred. On some level, Shaul and Bnei Yisroel indeed found value in Agag, and perhaps some of the more impressive members of the nation—the “Metiv HaTzon V’HaBakar”. This, in turn, led to their feelings of Chemla, and their ultimate error.

Although it is now clear that Shmuel warned Shaul about the pitfalls he faced, with a clear warning, we are left asking ourselves if this was sufficient. If Shmuel knew that Amalek cannot be defeated if we fall into the trap of Chemla, why did he not prepare Shaul in some way to avoid this danger? Why did he suffice with a warning and not offer a solution?

Perhaps, however, a closer examination of the Passuk reveals the way in which Shmuel wished to assist Shaul in his battle.

The first words of Shmuel’s instruction is not “Lech”, go, but “Attah”, now. Why was this word needed? Would Shaul assume that the directive issued by Shmuel was for a different time, perhaps some point in the future? What was meant by this opening word?

There is a Medrash in Beraishis Rabba which may provide the answer to this question.

The Passuk in Parshas Beraishis tells us why Hashem saw it necessary to banish Adam from Gad Eden: “V’Ata Pen Yishlach Yado V’Lakach Gam M’Etz HaChaim V’Achal V’Chai L’Olam”. Adam might now be so bold as to eat from the Etz Hachaim, enabling him to live forever, and so he must leave the Gan. The Medrash there teaches that the word “V’Atah” in this Passuk teaches us that Hashem opened for Adam the Pesach of Teshuva, because “Ain Atah Elah Teshuva”, the word Atah always refers to Teshuva.

We can apply this principal to the Passuk in our Haftorah as well: when Shaul said “Atah Lech V’Hikisa Es Amalek” the word “Atah” must in some way refer to Teshuva. On one hand this would help explain the meaning of this word in the Passuk, but we must understand its presence. Why, in fact Shaul, would make reference to Teshuva at this juncture?

The Arugas HaBosem, in various places throughout his writings, explains the reason that the word “Atah” refers to Teshuva. We often think of Teshuva as a process that takes time: we must contemplate our actions, understand what we did wrong, feel true Charata, make solid Kabalos for the future—there are many steps. Explains the Arugas HaBosem: this is a misconception. “Ikur HaTeshuva Taluy B’Rega Echad SheMasim El Libo LaShuv MiMaasov HaRa’im”. The Ikur of Teshuva takes places in one moment, when we decide to do Teshuva from our misdeeds and to improve our ways. This is because HKBH is the “Rotzeh B’Teshuva”, and wishes to give us the opportunity to do Teshuva.

He uses this idea to explain the Passuk at the beginning of Parshas Bamidbar, which says that Klal Yisroel were counted “B’Echad L’Chodesh HaSheni”. Because this counting was necessary only to reinforce the Chiba that Hashem had for Klal Yisroel, despite their Aveiros in the Midbar, it is said to take place “B’Echad”, a reference to the one moment of Teshuva that can be Misaken on all one’s past mistakes. It emerges that the counting of Klal Yisroel, and the gift of Teshuva are accordingly related, as each is an expression of the Chiba that Hashem has for us. The Umos HaOlam, he notes, do not have this ability were not given the gift of Teshuva, they cannot rectify their past deeds the way we can. The promise of “V’Ata”, the value of that one moment, does not apply to them but only to us, the recipients of the Chiba Yeseira of HKBH.

Maybe this is why Shmuel began his instructions with the word “Atah”. He knew that Shaul and his army were treading into dangerous territory: the lure of Amalek is real, and it was very possible that a sense of admiration would pervade. He therefore started by reminding Shaul that we are the Am HaNivchar, that we, and we alone, are given the gift of “V’Ata”, and with it the possibility to change the trajectory of our lives. This is only because of the Chiba that Hashem has for us, causing Him to act as the Rotzeh B’Teshuva.

Shmuel indeed gave Shaul the keys to success against Amalek: a health sense of self. If we recognize who we are, that we are the beneficiaries of endless Chiba, that we are the nation of V’Ata, whom can accomplish so much in so little time, we will not fall prey to the allure of Amalek. The moment we lose sight of that, as soon as our self-worth falters, we begin to hallucinate, conjuring an image of “Tiv HaDavar B’Atzmuso” within our enemies.

This can perhaps help us understand another curious part of the story.

The Passuk tells us that when Shaul rose his army he took one step before setting out: “VaYifkedem B’Tilaim”. Shaul’s first order of business in his mission was to count his people. Why? Perhaps because he had subsumed the message that Shaul sent. As we have seen, counting Klal Yisroel is always an expression of Chiba, and so Shaul undertook this census with the hopes that it would prepare he and his army for war with Amalek.

The message to us is clear: we encounter the influences of Amalek every day, and struggle to escape from his snares. It seems from these Pessukim that our best hope is to reinforce within ourselves how beloved we are to HKBH, and the gifts that He bestows upon us as a result of this Chiba. If we do so, we will diminish the appreciation we have for Amalek, and see him for who he truly is. This will prevent any feelings of Chiba from pervading, and in turn soon lead to the day of complete and total Mechias Amalek.