�Zachor Es Asher Asah
L�chah Amalek� - Remember what Amalek did to you - more than three
thousand years ago! Yes, Amalek was the first nation to wage an unprovoked
war against Israel but so much has transpired since that ancient battle.
Isn't it time to move on, to forgive and forget? Perhaps the answer lies
not so much in the attack itself as much as in the contributing
circumstances.
According to Rashi, at the end of Parshat Beshalach, Amalek's
ambush was a direct consequence of Israel failing to fully trust
in HaShem. Lacking water at Rephidim, Bnei Yisrael complained -
�HaYaish HaShem B�Kirbeinu� - Is HaShem among us (Shemot 17,7).
The pesukim that immediately follow report the attack of Amalek,
thus portraying the ensuing war as a direct punishment for this
breach in faith: "This Parsha, (describing the war of Amalek), is
placed next to this Pasuk, (�Is HaShem among us�), to demonstrate
that I (HaShem), am always among you and available for all your
needs, and you question 'Is HaShem among us'? Let the dog (Amalek)
come and bite you?"
Amalek's ability to attack was predicated on Israel's lack of
emunah, lack of faith in HaShem; but this too requires
explanation: How is it possible for a nation that has just
witnessed the Ten Plagues, the Exodus and the parting of the Red
Sea to have anything less than perfect faith in its� Savior?
Haven't we just experienced Yad HaShem - the hand of G-d - in a
way never replicated before or since? The Netziv (Haamek Davar,
Shemot 17,7), suggests that a closer examination of the wording of
Bnei Yisrael's complaint is in order: �HaYaish HaShem B�Kirbeinu�
is not to be translated �Is HaShem among us", but rather "Is
HaShem in us". The Dor Deah, the generation experiencing miracle
upon miracle, had no trouble comprehending HaShem as the
omnipotent Master of the Universe- how could they not? What they
failed to grasp was that the same King of Kings who parted the Red
Sea also takes an active interest in the details of every
individual being's daily needs. They questioned, teaches the
Midrash, whether the all-powerful G-d who vanquished Egypt was "in
our stomachs" as well, failing to appreciate that no detail is
beyond - or beneath His purview. In the words of the Talmud
(Shabbat 107b) �G-d sustains all, from the largest of oxen to the
smallest of vermin progeny. Providing for the routine, daily needs
of an entire nation was certainly not beneath Him.�
By annually recalling the attack of Amalek, we remind ourselves
primarily of the underlying conditions that precipitated the
ambush. The Yalkut Shimoni likens the commandment of remembering
Amalek to the king whose confidante attempts to help himself to
the fruits of the royal orchards only to be rebuffed by the
watchdog on guard. Unable to bring himself to rebuking his
hitherto trusted friend directly, the king focuses instead on the
dog: �Look how the mad dog ripped your clothing!'� While the overt
rememberance may center around Amalek, the not-so-subtle
implication is that of a painful breach of trust.
It is for this reason that the Mitzvah of Zechirat Amalek in
Parshat Ki-Teitze immediately follows the Pesukim decrying
inaccurate weights and measures. One would never consider armed
robbery or even breaking and entering, but an extra finger on the
scale, shaving off a little here and there�.Zachor! Remember
Amalek, remember what happens when we differentiate between what
we perceive as major and minor.
Rabbi Ahron Levine, the Reisha Rav (HaDerash V'Haiyyun, Parshat
Yitro), offers a similiar analysis of the verses in Parshat Yitro
preceding the Ten Commandments and Matan Torah. On the surface,
there is little connection between the advice of Moshe's
father-in-law regarding an efficient court system and the giving
of the Torah. In truth, however, it is this seemingly minor
chapter that serves as the basis of a Torah lifestyle. Yitro's
advice was accepted by Moshe, presumably with the Al-Mighty's
consent, but with one significant modification: Whereas Yitro
suggested that Moshe adjudicate �HaDavar HaGadol� (Shemot 18,22),
large claims, and delegate those smaller to lower courts, Moshe
ultimately decides to rule on �HaDavar HaKasheh� (ibid, 26),
difficult claims while delegating those less complex. Complexity
of a case, not the monetary size of a case, would determine venue,
for �the laws that apply to a prutah (small denomination of money)
are the same as the laws that apply to a hundred maneh (a large
denomination of money)�. Details count.
The Talmud (Shabbat 88a) relates that the Jews reaffirmed their
commitment to Torah in the aftermath of the Purim miracle. Though
our original acceptance of Torah at Sinai may have been partially
coerced �Kafah Aleihem Har Chagigis", we willingly embraced Torah
following the downfall of Haman. By reading Parshat Zachor on the
Shabbat before Purim, we acknowledge not only Haman's ancestry,
but perhaps more importantly, the centrality of the "little
things" to observance. Zachor - remember not only the battle, but
the erroneous assumptions that left us vulnerable as well. Just as
the original Matan Torah was proceeded by attention to detail, so
too the reaffirmation during the days of Achashverosh.
Indeed, the story of Purim itself is a confluence of "little
things", a myriad of apparently trivial details that woven
together over the course of a decade form the tapestry of a
singularly glorious miracle. Imagine if Mordechai had not just
happened to overhear Bigtan and Teresh plotting against the king.
Surely, notes the Gaon of Vilna, Achashverosh would have received
very different advice regarding parameters of selecting a new
queen to replace Vashti had he consulted with his cabinet, as he
had regarding her deposal in the first chapter of the Megillah,
rather than his errand boys, �Naarei HaMelech Mshorsav� (Esther
2:2-4). Would Esther have ever become queen had he consulted the
former? And what if Haman had been just a trifle less pompous?
Would he had ended up leading a royally garbed Mordechai through
the streets of Shushan? The terms "major and minor", significant
and insignificant", "large and small", are very often a function
of perception rather than reality.
During times of national crisis, such as those our people are
currently experiencing, we naturally seek innovative ways to try
to make a difference, Extra Tehillim, communal learning, shmirat
halashon programs, Israel fairs and missions, and large solidarity
rallies are just a few of many large scale initiatives adopted by
so many individuals and communities during these trying times. At
the same time, Parshat Zachor reminds us that the details of our
daily routines can also make a difference: paying more attention
to our regular daily tefillot (perhaps selecting a paragraph to
recite with true kavanah) or even just a kind word, or neighborly
smile. Who knows, maybe one of these 'small" acts will provide the
impetus for the largest of miracles - �BaYamim HaHeim, Bazman
Hazeh�.
Purim
14 Adar II 5763
March 18, 2003
Daf Yomi: Avodah Zara 5
Guest Author:
Michael Miller
CFO, National Council of Young Israel
Translator: Midrash Rabbah Hamevo'ar - Esther
The Megillah (Esther 1:6) presents a very detailed description of
the splendor of Achashverosh's palace for the great banquet:
"Chur karpas u'tcheles, achuz bechavlei butz, v�argaman, al glilei
kesef, va'amudei shesh, mitos zahav vakesef, al ritzpas bahat
vashesh vedar vesochares." Hangings of white, fine cotton and
blue, held with cords of fine linen and purple, on silver rods and
marble pillars; couches of gold and silver on a green and white
pavement, and shell and onyx marble.
The Midrash (Esther Rabbah 2:7-9) explains some of the more
unusual terms in this verse.
"Hangings made of white, fine cotton, and blue (chur karpas u'techeles)�".
The Midrash defines these as the colors of the curtains and the couch and
cushion covers. Akilas, a convert who had numerous dialogues with the
Sages (Gen. Rabbah 70:4) and translated the Torah into Greek, translated
chur as ayerinon (woolen, in Greek), similar to the Aramaic chiver
(white), and karpas as karpasinon (fine linen), as green as a vegetable.
Rabbi Bibi added that techeles is translated as tainon, sky-blue curtains,
forming the backdrop for the party. Rabbi Yitzchak explained chur as the
leisure clothing that free wealthy men (b'nei chorin) wear.
The blue curtains just mentioned were "�held with cords of fine linen and
purple�" between the pillars. The cords were made with very expensive
linen (butz) and wool dyed purple".
Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman observed, "Come and discern how fancy the garment
of this evil one was! All people, even the very wealthy, part their
curtains with cords of ordinary wool and linen, while this evil one used
cords of fine linen and purple." Even the wealthy use fine linen and
purple wool for their garments only, and ordinary wool and linen for
drapery cords. So if Achasheverosh made his drapery cords out of fine
linen and purple wool, his clothing must have been even more luxurious (Radal).
All of this illustrates how G-d allows the wicked to enjoy this world, and
how much more will be lavished on the righteous in the world to come.
"�On silver rods�" - Gelilim are rollers to which the drapery cords were
connected. Either they effected a rolling action, or they were
wheel-shaped. Rabbi Chia Rabbah and Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta differed on
how these rollers functioned. One said, "They rolled like the curtain of
the synagogue Ark, the way we draw open the curtains to either side, or
roll up a Torah scroll horizontally. For that reason, they were called
rollers." The other said, "They folded up like the sail of a ship, rolling
up vertically, the way a ship's sails are folded up onto the masts when
not in use." According to this view, it was the mechanism that was rounded
or wheel-shaped.
"�Pillars of marble �" - Shesh is equivalent to shayish (marble),
expensive stone used for flooring or pillars. (Note that shesh can
mean either marble, as it does here, or linen, which is similarly
white.) The curtains were mounted on these beautiful pillars.
Rabbi Levi said, "The quarry from which the marble came was not
revealed to anyone in creation except for this evil empire
(Rome)." Italy is world-renowned for its marble quarries, and
Achashverosh imported marble from there.
His colleagues responded that David had also had provided marble
for the Temple. "Is it not written," they asked, "that Solomon's
Temple had (Chron. I 29;2), '�all types of precious stones, and
marble stones in abundance.'? Didn't Solomon also have access to a
marble quarry with which to build the Temple?"
Rather, Solomon would place a diamond on both sides and marble
stones in the center, in between the gems. Marble thereby
comprised only a third of the material. He apparently had only
limited access to marble, and did not waste funds unnecessarily.
Achashverosh, in contrast, spent a fortune importing whole columns
of marble. It would have been easier and cheaper for Achashverosh
to make pillars of silver and of gold for himself, rather than
transporting marble pillars from distant quarries to Media.
You might say the columns Achashverosh imported were not carved out and
transported whole, but were brought in more cheaply by being cut into
sections and reassembled at the palace. Even so, they were impressive.
Rabbi Matana reported, "I slept on the flower-shaped carving that
decorated the top of one of the pillars, and it occupied my full height
and outstretched arms and legs." Rabbi Matana personally viewed the ruins
of Shushan, and reported their immense scale. Even if they were assembled,
the pillars were impressively large.
The description, "�couches of gold and silver..." is unclear. Were they
made of silver or gold, or some combination of the two? Rabbi Yehudah and
Rabbi Nechemiah differ on this point.
Rabbi Yehudah said, "Those worthy of silver were given the silver, and
those worthy of gold were given the gold. Some couches were all gold and
some all silver. Those of higher rank used the gold couches."
Rabbi Nechemia objected, "If so, this would arouse resentment at the feast
of this wicked one, and disrupt the purpose of the banquet, which was to
consolidate the empire. Rather, all the couches were the same, all made of
silver and plated with gold."
Rabbi Tachlifa, bar Bar Chana said, "They were made of gold and ringed
with silver, decorated with silver rope chains. Both the silver and gold
were visible, rather than covered with plating."
Shmuel said, "The outer frame, the part that faced inward, was
made of gold, and the inner frame, the part that faced the walls,
was made of silver, so all the couches were made of both gold and
silver."
The verse continues, "�on pavement of green (bahat) and white (shesh),
and shell (dar) and onyx marble (sochares)." The Sages of the
Midrash explain these four types of precious paving stones. Shesh
(marble) was previously discussed. Rabbi Nachman said, "Come and
see the tranquility, wealth and pleasure this evil one enjoyed in
this world, that his home was paved with precious stones and
diamonds, i.e., green and white pavement, and shell and onyx
marble."
"Green (bahat) and white (shesh), and shell (dar) and onyx marble (sochares)."
Rabbi Nisa of Caesaria said, "The word bahat refers to a diamond, which is
especially beloved by its owner." Bahat is understood as bachat, an
extremely precious gem whose owner went to great lengths to obtain (Rashi
on Meg. 12a). Shesh could be understood as soss, rejoicing in its
acquisition (Matnas Kehunah). Another possibility: It was not a gem, but
carved marble (shesh) as treasured as a diamond (Yedei Moshe).
Rabbi Yochanan explained, "The word dar refers to a precious diamond that
liberates its owner, who stands to realize enough profit to free him from
debt. As it is written about the liberation of slaves and property in the
Jubilee year, (Lev. 25;10), "�Proclaim liberty (dror)�". Dror is related
to dar.
Rabbi Huna noted, "There is a place where they call a gem a dura."
Rabbi Beiva bar Avuna said, "The word sochares refers to universally
acceptable merchandise, as it is written of the currency paid by Abraham
to Ephron (Gen. 23;16), '�over lasocher (negotiable currency).'"
What is the purpose of these seemingly trivial details? The
Maharal (Or Chadash) explains that Achashverosh's party had a
theme: His kingdom paralleled the Heavenly Kingdom.
Thus, the gleaming jewel in the center symbolized the sun.
Achashverosh paid for the party out of his own funds, just as G-d
provides for His creatures. By footing the bill for the party, he
provided a tax holiday, freeing the taxpayers (the merchants).
The Maharal further points out that the Mishkan, where the Divine Presence
dwells on earth, had columns, sockets and curtains; so did Achashverosh's
palace. The Mishkan had outer and inner courts; so did the palace.
Moreover, Achashverosh tried to replicate Solomon's throne, and wore (or
at least exhibited) the Priestly garments.
All of this was a pretense, an attempt to assert power. Persia was
certainly a major power, but only Malchus Yisrael has a legitimate right
to parallel the Malchus Shamayim. May G-d speedily reinstate the Davidic
dynasty through the King Messiah.
A freilichen Purim!
To receive a free e-mail subscription to NCYI�s weekly Torah Bulletin, send an email to:
YI_Torah@lb.bcentral.com
