No Jew Left Behind

BS"D 

By Binyomin Feinberg

Originally published on 7 Ellul 5780 - 27 August 2020 (Parshas Kee-Saitzai)

In this week's Torah portion, we read about Amalek (Devarim 25:17-19), that infamous sector of the international community which embodies rebellion against G-d (Reb Elchonon Wasserman O.B.M., "Kovetz He'oros" on Yevamos, Aggadah, 10:1-6), in this case, by targeting the most vulnerable of His Holy People. Over 33 centuries ago, when the Jewish People were traveling in the desert after the Exodus from Egypt - even before we received the Torah - Amalek launched a surprise attack, for no tangible benefit. They ambushed the stragglers, the "nech'esholyim acha'rechah." These were Jews who were spiritually deficient, (some say they were encumbered with remnants of idolatrous influences; see Tanchuma, Rashi, Targum Yonoson). Thus, they were expelled from the security of the protective Clouds of Glory encompassing the Camp. The Amalekites employed what has since then become perhaps a identifying modus operandi; they exploited their spiritual weakness, and physical vulnerabilities to attack, and they sodomized (Midrash Tanchuma 9, Rashi 18) and castrated (Targum Yonoson) their Jewish victims. They then cast their Milos towards Heaven, in a manifestation of their true aim, which has always been warring against G-d Almighty Himself (Reb Elchonon Wasserman ibid., 1-2). [See also the Medrash Shochar-Tov on Tehillim 2:2, as explained by the mefaraish (commentary), regarding the strategy of Gog U'Magog at the End of Days. Gog U'Magog will similarly seek to war against G-d by attacking His People - spiritually - by drawing Jews away from Him.]

Reb Elchonon explains there that Amalek has a unique status in Torah Law, under which, in ancient times, when there had been an incumbent obligation to obliterate their memory, even the livestock were not to remain, so as not to leave over any identifying remnant of that embodiment of evil for the sake of evil. An essential feature of Amalek is that they glorify sin for spite ("le'Hachis"). This quality is similarly described as sinning for its own sake [rather than sinning for some benefit], in regard to the descriptive "chato'im," employed by the war of Shaul against Amalek (Me'Am Lo'Aiz, Shmuel I,15:18). A premier manifestation of the Amalekite quality of le'hachis, spiteful sin, is to cause others to sin.

We live in an era in which brazenly "shouting out" the choice of a mother to kill her preborn baby has been mainstreamed. That exemplifies this quality of Le'hach'is - sinning for spite. Even in the Clinton era, as morally subversive as that administration was, at least the superficial claim marketed to the masses was that abortion was not an ideal, but to be kept "rare."

Moreover, the Amalekite feature of victimizing the most vulnerable is clearly manifested in the state-sanctioned mass-murder of the most vulnerable and most defenseless of our society, the preborn, with a death toll of over 60 million babies, since the enabling Supreme Court legislation of Roe v. Wade, almost half a century ago.

In addition, the government persecution of pro-life protesters and investigators, crisis pregnancy centers, and preborn Hatzalah (rescue) organizations is another undeniable confirmation of the core Amalekite nature of much of the western Establishment.

In perhaps no arena is this spiteful attitude of Amalek as overt as it is in the advocacy for celebration of the genre of immoral conduct branded as "abomination" (VaYikra (Lev.) 18:22, 20:13). The sin of sodomy is the only one specifically identified as an abomination - within its individual enumeration - in chapter 18. The other sins listed there are all classified as abominations, but at the end of chapter (as noted by the Maharal of Prague, and cited by the She'arim Metzuyanim BeHalacha, OB"M). This is reflective of sodomy's status as an abomination even among abominations. And THIS is the abomination of choice most celebrated by a large bipartisan swath of the political and corporate elite subculture in the Depraved West.

Unfortunately, in Israel, which has always been controlled by governments who operate in violation of core Torah principles, the situation is similarly intolerable in regard to these central moral issues. Reb Elchonon (ibid.), citing the Vilna Gaon describing the period before the Final Redemption, writes about the internalization of Amalek, afflicting ever Jewish community from within (perhaps alluding to what the Divrei Chaim writes in his hash'motos to Parshas VaYakhel about the alarming ascendancy of the Erev Rav within our communities). The premier threat posed by Amalek is now within. The main danger posed by Amalek is from those who are born Jewish but who operate as Spiritual Amalek. Reb Elchonon mentions, as examples, the virulently antireligious "Jewish" Communists ascendant in Russia at the time, as well as their spiritual Siamese twins in the Holy Land, the "Hellenists" (Rabbi Kahane HY"D popularized the term, but he didn't coin it).

The Amalekite nature of the abortion policy in Israel is blatant, in the sense that even from secular perspective the rampant abortion undermines national security, by depriving the country of needed manpower, and raising demographic concerns. And the engine of social engineering behind this moral depravity is the secularist-dominated melting-pot institution know as the Israeli Army. Not only does the Army promote immorality among the male youth, it also drafts girls, thereby precipitously degrading the spiritual and moral level of both boys and girls. Of course, the female draft contributes immensely to the permissive abortion culture, to the practical detriment of Jewish interests. This is another example of rishus le'hachis - evil for the sake of evil, inasmuch as these policies cause others - in the millions - to sin - and do so the grave detriment of national security.

As Jews of the Diaspora, we must address the domestic problems we have more direct influence over. However, do we have an additional obligation to address the aforementioned Israeli issues? What can we actually do about it? We clearly cannot rely on Jews living in Israel to address their problems alone, that simply has proven to be a recipe for disaster.

We in the Diaspora actually do have an additional capacity to impede such policies, by simply speaking out, in an intelligent manner. The Israeli government frequently tends to ignore domestic public opinion on such matters, but is sensitive to its much-cultivated image in the outside world. Thus, smart PR in the Diaspora is one of the most effective, and probably by far the most efficient means of effecting change in Israeli policies, of those available to us.

Our Sages exhort us (Talmud, tractate Shabbos 54b, 55) that our ability to influence obligates us to employ that capacity to effect positive change, or, alternatively, bear responsibility commensurate with our untapped potential for positive influence. This applies especially to matters easy to combat in the Diaspora media, including crimes against preborn babies, and crimes against innocent girls being drafted or hounded (religious or otherwise, Jewish or gentile). We have the ability to share information intelligently within our spheres of influence, specifically writing letters to the editor (of any publication), and getting sincere leaders and community activists informed and motivated, prompting them to speak out. In this regard, women may have a special role in this war against Amalek Within, by accentuating the evils of the state-sanctioned victimization of the most vulnerable. In fact, in the merit of righteous women, "noshim tzidkoniyos," the Final Redemption will come; see Kav HaYashar 82 (cf. Yalkut Shimoni on Rus 4, 606, end).

~~~~~ "... And if someone, like Pinchos, is one among a multitude, and every man is against him when he dares to speak out for truth and to fight for the Law -- the more lonely his stand, the greater the number of his adversaries, the more powerful is his word, the mightier his deed."

-- Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch OB"M (1808-1888), (in "Judaism Eternal," vol. 2, p. 293)