Total Recall

Prologue: It is a most personal Mitzva. Remember what Amalek did to YOU. Recall it, experience it and be prepared to obliterate the Amalekite name from the world. And, as such, we read Parshat Zachor once a year. But why is the command given to the individual? Why does the Torah not recall what Amalek did to the collective (Lachem) Jewish nation and choose to focus on the personal attack (Asher Asa Lecha)? After all, wasn't Amalek's deed one that affected the entire nation?

Rav Yitzchak Meir of Gur once noted that the difference between Lecha and Lachem is the group you find yourself in. When a person is in a strong group committed to strong Jewish values, then it is difficult to pull him out and attack him. When threats to the Jewish soul have lingered, they have begun by attacking the fringe, those members of the community who feel that they do not belong. When a person was within the Israelite camp, he was protected from Amalek by the Ananim and by the people he was with. When he was alone, he was open to attack.

The lesson of Amalek is one that cuts to the heart of the Jewish community. When we reach in and unite with our people then our whole is greater than the sum of its parts and we are indestructible. However, when we use an exclusionary policy of relating, we lose those on the fringe. Hence, the antidote to Amalek is Purim. When Amalek attacks, we declare, as Esther did, Leich Knos Et KOL HaYehudim, gather all Jews together, even the ones who do not normally come to Shul. We respond with gifts to one another and to the poor in order to bring our community closer together. When we stand united we are strong. When divided, we might not be able to withstand the fall.

*********

Total Recall?

*********

The Mitzvah of Zichiras Amalek is a well known one. The Rosh (Berachos 7:20) notes that the Mitzva is Biblical in nature. Tosafos (Megillah 17b) concurs with this opinion of the Rosh. In fact, the Terumas HaDeshen (108) noted that it was more important for the villagers who could not access a Minyan easily, to attend the Services in a city on Shabbos Zachor than it was to attend the reading of the Megillah since the former is a biblical obligation while the latter is not (Rav Daniel Feldman Shlita [Binah BeSeforim II:18] notes that there are those who challenge the Rosh's opinion noting only that he felt it must be read with a minyan but not that it was Biblical in nature. He cites an article from R. Dovid Metzger in Oraisa [XVII:339] who notes that he checked the original manuscript of the Rosh and indeed this is his opinion – that Parshas Zachor must be read based on a Mitzva D'Oraisa).

It should be noted that the Rambam does not give any special relevance to the reading of Parshas Zachor. Many (See Shut Teshuvos V'Hanhagos II:352) have noted that this seems to suggest that the Rambam did not see the reading as being Biblically ordained. The Ramban (Commentary to Parshas Kee Tze Tze) too, seems to disagree with the stated position of the Rosh and Tosafos. Even the Mishna Berurah (Shaar Hatzion 685:5) notes that he can't find a source to suggest that Biblically speaking, Parshas Zachor must be read with a Minyan. In fact, it seems that the Mitzva of reading Zachor with a Minyan seems to be Rabbinically ordained.

The Sefer Nachlas Shimon (Melachim I: II; 55:6) tries to prove that indeed the reading of Zachor in a Minyan is Rabbinic in orientation. The text seems to suggest that Yoav wasn't sure if the correct reading of the verse was Zeicher Amalek or Zecher Amalek. However, if it were a set Minhag, why did he not just check in a Shul? Rather, concludes the Nachalas Shimon, the command to read Zachor in public must be Rabbinic in origin and the Rabbis must not have set up the ruling as yet.

The proof of the Nachalas Shimon raises an important practical Halachic question as to the proper pronunciation of the Torah reading and of the word "Zeicher" or "Zecher". There are many (Shut B"Tzel HaChochma VI: 50; Moadim U'Zemanim II:167) who note that the word should be pronounced Zeicher. They add that when one reads this section even on the regular week of Parshas Kee Tze Tze, he only read the word once, and then, it is read as Zeicher. Others (Gra, Maaseh Rav 134) note that the best pronunciation is Zecher and that is the way it is to be read on the regular Shabbos Parshas Kee Tze Tze. The Mishnah Berurah (685:18) therefore recommends that one apply both stringencies and read the section with an additional recall.

The only difficulty with the position of the Mishna Berurah is how far back one must return when reading the Parsha. According to the opinion that the ideal word is Zeicher, reading Zeicher and then immediately repeating the word as Zecher seems to suggest that the word Zeicher was a mispronunciation and therefore is negated. Since these sources maintain that Zeicher is the correct way of saying the word, one would not want to negate the correct form. Therefore, these sources advocate the repetition of the entire Possuk or the saying of the word Zecher before Zeicher in order to demonstrate allegiance with this pronunciation.

The Ketzos HaShulchan (84:22) seemed unconcerned with the need to extend the reading. He notes that this was never the practice among Gedolei Yisroel. Indeed Rav Shlomo Zalman (Halichos Shlomo Adar) offers a possible explanation as to why. He notes that from the text (Nedarim 2a) of a Neder made with a Kinui (nickname) we learn that even a mispronunciation is considered proper language. That being the case, if one says Zecher instead of Zeicher or Zeicher instead of Zecher, the reading would still be understood and counted as proper. V'Olam K'minhago Holeich.