Parshas Beshalach
1. On the verse "ויאמר כי יד על כס י-ה מלחמה לה' בעמלק מדור דור" ("And he said: For there is a hand on the throne of G‑d; there shall be a war for G‑d against Amalek from generation to generation")1 Rashi explains "ויאמר — משה" ("And he said — Moshe"). The commentators say2 that without Rashi's explanation, one would have learned "And he said" to mean that G‑d said it.
— The verse "And he said…" would then follow on (not from the verse immediately before it, "ויבן משה גו'" ("And Moshe built…")3 but rather) from the verse before that, "ויאמר ה' אל משה כתוב זאת זכרון בספר גו'" ("And G‑d said to Moshe: Write this as a remembrance in the book…")4 —
Therefore Rashi explains "And he said — Moshe," and the verse "And he said…" relates to the verse immediately before it.
This is not understood: Where would anyone get the idea (especially according to Rashi's approach — the plain meaning of Scripture) to learn that the verse does not relate to the verse immediately before it, but rather to skip over to the one before that4, to the point that Rashi must guard against this and explain "And he said — Moshe"?
2. Rashi then pauses on the words "כי יד על כס י-ה" ("For there is a hand on the throne of G‑d") and explains: "ידו של הקב"ה הורמה לישבע בכסאו להיות לו מלחמה ואיבה בעמלק עולמית" ("The hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, was raised to swear by His throne that He would have war and enmity against Amalek forever").
The plain meaning of "a hand on the throne" is that G‑d's hand then (at the time of the oath) lay (so to speak) on His throne5. Rashi, however, explains "was raised to swear by His throne": His hand was lifted (so to speak) in order to swear by His throne, but the hand was not on the throne6.
Rashi's compelling reason for this is simply understood:
We already find in the earlier sidros that at the time of an oath one raises the hand (— regarding Avraham it says "הרימותי ידי" ("I have raised my hand")7, and regarding G‑d Himself it says "נשאתי את ידי" ("I lifted up My hand")8). And since "For there is a hand on the throne of G‑d" means that G‑d swore, it is understood that He raised His hand — "the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, was raised." It cannot be, then, that His hand was lying on the throne at that time — for when the one sitting on the throne raises his hand, it is of course far higher than the throne. And this is why Rashi learns "was raised to swear by His throne"9.
One must understand, however: Why does Rashi need at all to learn that "For there is a hand on the throne of G‑d" refers to an oath, on account of which he must learn "the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, was raised, etc." and thereby take the words "a hand on the throne" out of their plain meaning10? He could have learned — as several of the plain-meaning commentators do — "כשתהי' ידי וחזוק על כסא י-ה, שזהו כסא מלכי ישראל, אז תהי' מלחמה בעמלק" ("When there will be a hand and strength on the throne of G‑d, which is the throne of the kings of Israel, then there will be war against Amalek")11 — in which case "a hand on the throne" would have its literal meaning12?13
One must also understand what Rashi says, "war and enmity": the verse says only "a war for G‑d against Amalek…"; where does Rashi get the addition of "enmity" to "war"?
3. After Rashi explains "The hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, was raised to swear by His throne, etc." he asks: "ומהו כס ולא נאמר כסא ואף השם נחלק לחציו" ("And what is kes — it does not say kisei — and even the Name is divided in half?")
[This question follows from his explanation "His hand… to swear by His throne"14: It is simply understood that the force of an oath corresponds to the greatness of the thing by which one swears15. So since the meaning of "a hand on the throne of G‑d" is that G‑d swore by His throne, it should have said "כסא הוי'" ("the throne of G‑d") — a complete throne and a complete Name, because16: emphasizing the greatness of the throne (a complete throne) and of the Master of the throne (a complete Name) also underscores the strength of the oath?
And Rashi answers:]
"נשבע הקב"ה שאין שמו שלם ואין כסאו שלם17 עד שימחה שמו של עמלק כולו" ("The Holy One, blessed be He, swore that His Name is not complete and His throne is not complete until the name of Amalek is entirely erased").
One must understand:
a) Two verses earlier it says "מחה אמחה את זכר עמלק" ("I will surely erase the remembrance of Amalek")18; seemingly Rashi should have said here too "until his remembrance is erased, etc." — why does he say "until his name is erased"19?
b) In the final analysis it would suffice for Rashi to say simply "until the name of Amalek is erased" — what does he add with the word "(until the name of Amalek is erased) entirely"20?
4. After Rashi says "The Holy One, blessed be He, swore that His Name is not complete, etc. entirely" — in order to explain the reason for "kes" and "Y-ah" — he introduces another matter21: "וכשימחה שמו יהי' השם שלם והכסא שלם שנאמר22 האויב תמו חרבות לנצח, זהו עמלק שכתוב בו23 ועברתו שמרה נצח, וערים נתשת24 אבד זכרם המה, מהו אומר אחריו והוי' לעולם ישב הרי השם שלם, כונן למשפט כסאו הרי כסאו שלם" ("And when his name is erased, the Name will be complete and the throne complete, as it is said: 'The enemy — the swords are finished forever': this is Amalek, of whom it is written 'and he kept his wrath forever'; 'and You have uprooted cities, their remembrance has perished.' What does it say after this? 'And G‑d sits forever' — behold, the Name is complete; 'He has established His throne for judgment' — behold, His throne is complete").
One must understand:
a) The question "And what is kes, etc." is already answered by "that His Name is not complete and His throne is not complete until… is erased, etc." — why must Rashi further add "And when his name is erased, the Name will be complete and the throne complete"?
b) Since the entire cause of "His Name is not complete and His throne is not complete" is only "the name of Amalek" [and even this is not because "the name of Amalek" in itself can, G‑d forbid, detract from the Name and throne of the Holy One, blessed be He, but because "the Holy One, blessed be He, swore"], it is self-evident and simple that when the name of Amalek is erased, there will be "the Name complete" and "His throne complete." In what, then, consists Rashi's novelty in adding "And when his name is erased, the Name will be complete and the throne complete"; and the novelty is (apparently) so great that he must bring a proof for it — "as it is said, etc."25?
5. The explanation of all the above will become clear by first raising another question: Why did Moshe say here26: "For there is a hand on the throne of G‑d…"; what was he aiming at by relating here that G‑d swore to have an eternal war with Amalek?
[Commentators27 learn that Moshe said it as a reason: he says "ה' נסי" ("G‑d is my miracle") because G‑d swore to wage war with Amalek. According to Rashi's explanation, however, one cannot learn this way, because — on "G‑d is my miracle" Rashi says "הקב"ה עשה לנו כאן28 נס" ("The Holy One, blessed be He, performed a miracle for us here"), that G‑d performed (in the past) a miracle for us here [unlike the above commentators — that "G‑d is my miracle" is connected (also29) with the future]. "For there is a hand… a war for G‑d against Amalek…" cannot then be a reason for the proclamation "G‑d is my miracle"30 — because the oath is "that He would have war, etc.": that G‑d will have a war against Amalek (in the future).]
Because of this difficulty, one would seemingly have had to learn that "And he said (For there is a hand…)" refers not to Moshe but to G‑d, and that the verse continues from the verse before the preceding one, "And G‑d said to Moshe…",
and the sequence of the verses would be31: First it states what G‑d said to Moshe that Moshe should do regarding the war of Amalek — "כתוב זאת זכרון בספר ושים באזני יהושע" ("Write this as a remembrance in the book and place it in the ears of Yehoshua"); then it relates what Moshe did in this — "And Moshe built an altar…" (as for its relating only the building of the altar, but not the writing of the remembrance and the placing in Yehoshua's ears — we find this in many places32 where only the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moshe is stated, and not also how Moshe fulfilled the command); and then it states what G‑d said regarding His own (G‑d's) action in connection with Amalek, that He swore "a war for G‑d against Amalek…".
— And in order to negate this explanation, Rashi writes "And he said — Moshe"33, and that the verse continues from the verse immediately before it (and not from the one before that).
6. But why did Moshe say "For there is a hand on the throne of G‑d…"?
It has already been said many times that all the questions — in the way of pshat — that arise in Chumash, Rashi either answers or at least guards against in his commentary on the Torah. Since Rashi does not explicitly explain what Moshe was aiming at in saying "For there is a hand…", it is understood that Rashi relies on this being grasped through a close reading — and the close reading of one who learns Scripture alone, a five-year-old, suffices — of his commentary on these words. That is, all the above questions (Sections 2–4) in this comment are also the "key" to finding (according to Rashi's explanation) the purpose of Moshe's saying "For there is a hand on the throne of G‑d…".
— According to Rashi's explanation, by saying "For there is a hand…" Moshe fulfilled G‑d's command here, "place34 it in the ears of Yehoshua"35. And accordingly all the above fine points are answered — as will be explained below, from Section 10 onward.
7. On this basis one will also understand Rashi's explanation of the preceding verse, "ויבן משה מזבח ויקרא שמו ה' נסי" ("And Moshe built an altar and called its name 'G‑d is my miracle'"):
On "ויקרא שמו" ("And he called its name") Rashi explains "של מזבח" ("of the altar"). And on "G‑d is my miracle": "הקב"ה עשה לנו כאן נס. לא שהמזבח קרוי ה' אלא המזכיר שמו של מזבח זוכר את הנס שעשה המקום, ה' הוא נס שלנו" ("The Holy One, blessed be He, performed a miracle for us here. Not that the altar is called 'G‑d,' but rather one who mentions the name of the altar remembers the miracle that the Omnipresent performed: G‑d is our miracle").
Learning this at first glance, it emerges that with his explanation "of the altar"36 Rashi means that "its name"37 does not mean G‑d's name38 but the name of the altar39; and with his explanation "(The Holy One, blessed be He, performed, etc.) Not that the altar is called 'G‑d,' etc." he means that "G‑d is my miracle"40 was not the name by which Moshe called the altar, but that the name Moshe gave it expressed39 the concept of "G‑d is my miracle"40.
Accordingly, however, it is not understood: a) Why does Rashi also quote the word "And he called (its name)", when he explains only "its name"41? b) What is he aiming at in explaining "but rather one who mentions its name, etc." — the explanation here should have been: "Not that the altar is called 'G‑d' but rather that it is named for the miracle, etc."42?
The explanation of this: With his explanation "of the altar" on "And he called its name," Rashi means to introduce: (a) that "And he called" does not relate to Moshe43, but to "its name (of the altar)", that is, that the name of the altar was what "called" — what brought about the proclamation "G‑d is my miracle" (and this Rashi explains further: "one who mentions the name of the altar" would be reminded and say "G‑d is our miracle"). And consequently (b): "Not that the altar is called 'G‑d'"44 — the altar was not called by any name at all that would allude to "G‑d is my miracle", but rather "one who mentions the name of the altar remembers the miracle": mentioning the name of the altar brought one to remember the miracle and then to proclaim "G‑d is my miracle"45.
Seemingly, the plain meaning of "And he called its name 'G‑d is my miracle'" is that Moshe called the altar (by a name meaning) "G‑d is my miracle" — why then does Rashi not learn it this simply, but rather construes that "And he called" relates to the word "its name", and that mentioning the name of the altar brought about the proclamation "G‑d is my miracle"?
On the basis of Section 6 above this is understood: If one were to learn the plain meaning here — that Moshe gave the altar a name (meaning) "G‑d is my miracle" — there would be a difficulty: Moshe was commanded "and place it in the ears of Yehoshua", so he should have fulfilled this command immediately46; how then did he busy himself, after the command, with giving the altar a name before fulfilling the command "and place…" by saying "For there is a hand…"? And the verse further emphasizes and relates that immediately after the command "and place…" Moshe not only built an altar but also "and he called its name…". Therefore Rashi learns that "And he called" refers not to Moshe but to the name of the altar, as above.
8. In truth, however, this explanation is not smooth, for several reasons47, among them:
This very question — how did Moshe busy himself with other matters before fulfilling the command "and place…" by saying "For there is a hand…" — applies not only to "And he called its name" but equally — why indeed "And Moshe built an altar" at that point (before fulfilling the command)?
One must therefore say that since building the altar is an expression of thanks and praise for having won the war against Amalek and for the good tidings "מזבח אמונה גו'" [OCR unclear]48, Moshe therefore built the altar immediately, so as to give his thanks to G‑d right away.
— And this being so, one can already learn that "And he called its name" refers to Moshe. And there is no question of how Moshe came to give the altar a name before fulfilling G‑d's command — since giving (and establishing) a name of thanksgiving is part of the thanksgiving. Why then does Rashi not want to learn that "And he called its name" refers to Moshe?
The explanation of this (and it is correct even without the above question):
Everywhere that it says "ויקרא שמו" ("And he called his name") or "ותקרא" ("And she called") and the like49, it means that he called the thing [OCR unclear]
— therefore Rashi learns that "And he called" refers not to Moshe but to "the name of the altar": that the name of the altar [by which Moshe called it (since giving this name is part of the thanksgiving, as above)] brought one to remember the miracle and to proclaim "G‑d is my miracle".
9. The meaning of "and place it in the ears of Yehoshua" — (not to say, but) to put it into Yehoshua's ears — is that what Moshe will write "as a remembrance in the book" should be "placed in the ears51 of Yehoshua", to the point that Yehoshua should understand that he must instruct the Jewish people "לשלם לו את גמולו" ("to pay him his recompense")52. And this Moshe fulfilled through his saying "For there is a hand…":
When Yehoshua heard that G‑d swore by His throne (a) that He will have an eternal war and enmity with Amalek, and (b) that as long as the name of Amalek is not entirely erased, "His Name is not complete and His throne is not complete" — it is understood that this moved Yehoshua (although he had no explicit command about it) to instruct the Jewish people "to pay him his recompense".
And therefore Rashi cannot learn "When there will be a hand and strength on the throne of G‑d, which is the throne of the kings of Israel, then there will be, etc." (although according to that explanation the expression "a hand on the throne" is smoother), because according to that, the "hand on the throne" has no connection to "and place it in the ears of Yehoshua", since "there will be a hand and strength, etc." is merely a narrative. Especially since in the days of Yehoshua there was not yet any "throne of the kings of Israel" — the first king was Shaul. And since according to Rashi Moshe's statement "For there is a hand…" fulfilled the command "and place it in the ears of Yehoshua", he must learn (the other explanation that can be given): "The hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, was raised to swear by His throne."
10. Since "and place it in the ears of Yehoshua" means: put it into his thoughts, Moshe had to show the necessity and compelling need "to pay him his recompense". Rashi therefore emphasizes (in Moshe's statement) "until the name of Amalek is entirely erased", because without this emphasis the entire explanation of the compelling need "to pay him his recompense"53 is missing:
True indeed that "בא עמלק להזדווג לישראל קודם לכל האומות" ("Amalek came to join battle with the Jewish people before all the nations")54 [by which he showed all the nations a way that one can provoke the Jews — for when the Jews left Egypt, "אימתה ופחד" ("terror and dread") fell upon all the nations, to the point that "נמוגו" ("they melted") and "ידמו כאבן" ("they were still as a stone")55, and the opening to join battle with the Jewish people arose only through "ויבא עמלק וילחם עם ישראל" ("And Amalek came and fought with Israel")].
— But after "ויחלוש יהושע את עמלק ואת עמו לפי חרב" ("And Yehoshua weakened Amalek and his people by the sword"), when all his warriors were killed55 [and all understood that the Jews could — all the more so — also kill the weak ones56], everyone again saw the power of the Jews, and the damage of "And Amalek came and fought" was undone — why then is it so imperative to wipe out Amalek?
Therefore Rashi emphasizes "until the name of Amalek is entirely erased": as long as anything at all remains of him — even only his name — "His Name*56 (of the Holy One, blessed be He) is not complete and His throne is not complete." And this being so, it is imperative to wipe out Amalek altogether.
11. On this basis it is also understood why Rashi adds "and enmity":
The reason for G‑d's saying to Moshe "place it in the ears of Yehoshua" (not "say to Yehoshua" and the like) is simply understood: so that Yehoshua's command to the Jewish people (afterward) should come not merely from accepting the yoke, but from a "placing"57 in his ears58 — with vitality and arousal*58.
This, however, is not understood: True indeed that Yehoshua knew how much the war against Amalek mattered [to the point that G‑d swore "שיהי' לו מלחמה בעמלק עולמית" ("that He would have war against Amalek forever") and that "His Name is not complete and His throne is not complete until the name of Amalek is entirely erased", as above],
but since the actual war with Amalek took place only much later — in the time of Shaul, and Yehoshua — being the one who is "מכניס את ישראל לארץ" ("bringing the Jewish people into the Land") — could do no more than command the Jewish people to do it later, what kind of vitality can there be in a command to do something after a long time — several generations later?
Therefore Rashi adds "and enmity" — "enmity" denotes a constant feeling of hatred — not one bound up with some action of the thing hated, such that when the action ceases or the thing goes away the enmity is nullified, but as it says59 "ואיבה אשית בינך ובין גו'" ("And I shall place enmity between you and…") —
that the war for G‑d against Amalek in the time of Shaul came from G‑d's (so to speak) enmity toward Amalek; and since the enmity already existed beforehand, it follows that even when Yehoshua had to command the Jewish people "to pay him his recompense" later on, the command came from something in full force in Yehoshua's own time — G‑d's enmity toward Amalek, about which He swore "that He would have (war and) enmity against Amalek forever".
12. The explanation of Rashi's adding "And when his name is erased, the Name will be complete and the throne complete", and further bringing a proof for it, "as it is said, etc.":
From the expression "kes Y-ah" in our verse one sees only that as long as the name of Amalek is not erased, "His Name is not complete and His throne is not complete", but it is not compelled from here (especially after it is already not complete) that erasing the name of Amalek suffices and that it must become complete. Therefore Rashi brings a proof — "as it is said, etc." — that "their remembrance has perished" brings about "the Name complete" and "His throne complete." This is similar to what Rashi says earlier60: "כשהקב"ה מתנקם ברשעים שמו מתגדל ומתכבד" ("When the Holy One, blessed be He, takes revenge on the wicked, His Name is magnified and honored").
On this basis it is understood that what Moshe Rabbeinu said earlier61 — that "לעתיד לבוא" ("in the Time to Come") "כל המלוכה" ("all the kingship") will be G‑d's, and that this is connected with "כסא של מעלה" ("the throne above") — upon hearing the oath, and that "מדור דור" ("from generation to generation") there is "a war for G‑d against Amalek", and that without this the "throne (and the Name) is not complete", means "the Time to Come" immediately upon the ending of the war against Amalek. And this is what Rashi adds and explains, "And when his name is erased, the Name will be complete and the throne complete" — for this has now been added to the explanation of the verse "ה' ימלוך לעולם ועד" ("G‑d shall reign forever and ever").
13. And the "יינה של תורה" ("the wine of the Torah") — that is within Rashi's commentary on the Torah:
Chassidus explains62 the matter of the kelipah of Amalek, and the connection of the kelipah of Amalek with "His Name is not complete":
"Amalek" derives from the phrase "ומלק את ראשו ממול ערפו" ("and he shall pinch off its head opposite its nape")63, which in spiritual service means that Amalek "cuts off" and does not allow the comprehension of the mind to descend into the stirring of the heart.
[This is the explanation, in the inner dimension of matters, of what it says about Amalek, "אשר קרך" ("who chilled you"): he brought about a coldness in all the nations, so that they would not fear the Jews — although previously, because of the miracles and wonders at the Exodus and the Splitting of the Sea, they indeed feared the Jews (as above, Section 10): The concept of the seven nations (which are the general category of all the nations) is the seven evil middos. And Amalek, whose whole nature is not to allow the comprehension of the mind to come down into the middos of the heart, thereby caused that the middos of the heart should not be affected by what they comprehend of the greatness and might of G‑d and of the Jewish people64.]65
And this is the connection of "His Name is not complete" with the kelipah of Amalek: Y-ah is the concept of mochin, and V-av Hei is the concept of middos. And since Amalek brought about an interruption between mochin and middos, the level of Y-ah does not shine into the level of V-av Hei — and consequently "His Name is not complete."
14. The above matter, that Amalek caused an interruption between Y-ah and V-av Hei, Rashi alludes to in the word "enmity" (which he adds):
On the verse66 "ואיבה אשית בינך ובין האשה ובין זרעך ובין זרעה" ("And I shall place enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed"), the Tzemach Tzedek says in Ohr HaTorah67 that "איבה" ("enmity") is an acronym of "ואתחנן אל ה' בעת ההיא" ("And I implored G‑d at that time"). And the explanation of this (according to what is understood from Ohr HaTorah there) is:
"ואתחנן" is numerically 51568. 500 indicates the level of middos (this is why the matters of the worlds, whose coming into being is from the middos — the seven days of building — number 50069), and 15 (numerically Y-ah) is the level of mochin, and the concept of [ואתחנן, numerically] 515 [500 and 15 in one word] is the joining of mochin and middos70.
And this is the connection of the "enmity" of which G‑d spoke to the serpent with "ואתחנן": Just as Amalek, who is "משרש נחש" ("from the root of the serpent")70, brought about that there not be "His Name complete" — an interruption between Y-ah and V-av Hei, the opposite of "ואתחנן, numerically 515" — therefore there came about "And I shall place enmity…" toward the serpent and toward Amalek who is of its root, that there should be the "I will surely erase the remembrance of Amalek", through which there will again be "ואתחנן, numerically 515" (the joining of Y-ah with V-av Hei) — the complete Name.
And therefore (in addition to the above, Section 11) Rashi uses the term "enmity" — not the term "hatred" and the like (although the term eivah is found only a limited number of times in Tanach) — in order to allude to the above matter.
15. Another matter of the "wine of the Torah" in our Rashi:
How can Amalek bring about that the comprehension of the mind should not reach the middos of the heart? Chassidus explains that this results from a forcefulness of kelipah that is not according to reason. From this it is understood that the power to draw the mochin into the middos, after "And Amalek came" has already taken place, comes not from intellect in itself — for Amalek can oppose intellect — but from an essential forcefulness within a person, which breaks the kelipah of Amalek that interrupts between mochin and middos.
On this basis one may explain that with the words "And when his name is erased, the Name will be complete and the throne complete" Rashi means to say that through the erasure of the name of Amalek there will (not only be removed the lack of completeness caused by Amalek, but there will also) be added a higher completeness (so to speak) in the Name and throne of the Holy One, blessed be He.
16. This matter of the completeness added through the erasure of Amalek, Rashi alludes to in that, when bringing the proof from Tehillim (that through "their remembrance has perished" there will be "And G‑d… His throne" — a complete Name and a complete throne), he emphasizes "The enemy — the swords are finished forever: this is Amalek, of whom it is written 'and he kept his wrath forever'":
Since the wrath of Amalek is "netzach" ("forever") — with the forcefulness of victory that is not according to reason — it is understood that through the erasure of the name of Amalek (which the Jewish people accomplish through their service during the time of exile — in the manner of the forcefulness of victory that is above reason71), there is added a completeness in the Name and throne of the Holy One, blessed be He — an essential one, higher than revelations: the inwardness and Essence of Ein Sof, blessed be He72.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Beshalach 5725)
Notes
1) End of our parsha.
2) Re'em and Gur Aryeh here.
3) See below, note 13, that the Rashbam explains it this way according to the interpretation of the "some explain." The Re'em explains (according to this hypothesis) "that G‑d answered him when he built the altar and called it 'G‑d is my miracle.'" But according to Rashi (see below, Section 7), the name of the altar was called "G‑d is my miracle," and the verse relates only that Moshe built the altar — so it is not applicable that G‑d should answer him "For there is a hand…" about the building of the altar.
4) See Gur Aryeh here: "But this is not possible, for this verse refers to the verse before it, etc."
5) Rabbeinu Chananel (cited in Torah Sheleimah, Beshalach, p. 274); Bachaye, Ibn Ezra and Rashbam on this verse. Similarly in Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 44: "He stretched out His right hand and grasped His throne of glory." And in Midrash Sechel Tov: "As a person who places his hand on tefillin, etc." But in the Mechilta here and in Midrash Tehillim 9:10: "The Holy One, blessed be He, swore by the throne of glory" (and not "grasped") — similar to Rashi's wording.
6) In the Re'em and Sifsei Chachamim here, this is also Rashi's intention. But (a) from Rashi's wording "was raised to swear by His throne" (and not "was raised on His throne to swear" — similar to the wording of the Rashbam here) it is evident as in the text. (b) Simply, when the hand of one who sits on the throne is raised, it is above the throne, as below in the text.
7) Lech Lecha 14:22. And in Rashi there: "an expression of oath."
8) Vaera 6:8 (and in Rashi there: "I raised it to swear, etc."). See also Haazinu (32:40): "For I lift up… My hand" (and in Rashi there: "in an oath").
9) And so he emphasizes in Parshas Vaera there.
10) In addition: According to Rashi's explanation (unlike the explanations cited below, note 12) that "hand" refers to the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, it should have written "Y-ah" before the word "kes," next to "hand" (for why should it be more obvious in "hand" that it refers to the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, than in "kes") — but see below, note 17.
11) For the explanation "hand = strength" holds also according to Rashi (see Rashi on our parsha 14:31), and that the throne of the kings of Israel is called the "throne of G‑d" is explicit in the verse (Divrei HaYamim I 29:23; as in Tractate Sanhedrin (20b); Sifri Re'eh (section 67); Ibn Ezra and Ramban here). Especially since Rashi already explained earlier (Mikeitz 41:40) that "throne" is an expression of "kingship."
12) As the "some explain" cited in Rashbam and Ramban here. And see similarly Sanhedrin and Sifri there; Mechilta here; Ibn Ezra and Daas Zekeinim MiBaalei HaTosafos here.
13) See Ramban here: "And according to the plain meaning it is correct," whereas regarding Rashi's explanation he writes "and it is a Midrash of the Sages"*. The Rashbam here rejects this explanation, for according to it "he should have said 'שבי תהי' יד' ('that by Me there shall be a hand')"** (since "And he said" refers to the Holy One, blessed be He***). But [in addition to the fact that even according to this explanation one can explain "And he said — Moshe," even if there is some compelling reason that according to this explanation "And he said" refers to the Holy One, blessed be He,] in Rashi (Vayeira 19:24): "it is the way of the verses to speak this way." And the Rashbam's question here follows his own view in Parshas Vayeira there: "'And G‑d rained' — the angel Gavriel; 'from G‑d' — the actual Shechinah." See also Parshas Mishpatim (24:1), where the Rashbam explains "'He said' — an angel," whereas Rashi did not need to explain anything there.
*) One cannot say that "and it is a Midrash of the Sages" refers to the end of Rashi's comment, "And what is kes, etc." — for in the "some explain" which he brings immediately afterward he explains only the general matter of "a hand on the throne," and not the reason why it says "kes" and not "kisei."
**) But — in several printings of the Rashbam the reading is "שכי תהי' יד כו'" (not "שבי כו'").
***) As is evident from the wording (of the "some say" in Rashbam): "When there will be my hand and strength on the throne of G‑d, etc." — the Rashbam changes from the wording of the verse, "hand," and writes "my hand" (although תומ"י quotes exactly the wording of the verse, "hand" — and twice (therefore one cannot say that this is a copyist's error — since such an error comes from a slip of familiar wording, and not an error of writing — to change and to innovate!)]. But in the Rashbam, Bromberg edition (Tel Aviv, 5725, from the "Breslau 5642 edition according to manuscripts and printed books"): "When there will be a hand (not 'my hand') and strength, etc." And so in Ramban here: "When there will be a hand on the throne of G‑d."
14) Therefore (a) Rashi does not quote the words of the verse again here — to emphasize that this is the continuation of the same comment. (b) He writes "And what is, etc." — with the additive vav.
15) See Choshen Mishpat, siman 87, se'if 15. And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 89, note 24.
16) But without this, he would ask only about the wording "kes," and not about "Y-ah" — since it is also so stated earlier (our parsha 15:2)*. One may say that this is also the precision of Rashi's wording "and even the Name is divided in half" — for his main question is about the wording "kes," which "has no parallel," unlike the Name "Y-ah."
*) And perhaps one may say that our case is different — since in the preceding verses it says "And G‑d said to Moshe…" and "G‑d is my miracle," and also in this very verse — "a war for G‑d against Amalek…".
17) The proof that "His Name is not complete, etc." is part of the oath of the Holy One, blessed be He: if we say that the name of Amalek in itself causes "His Name is not complete, etc.," and the oath of the Holy One, blessed be He, is only "a war for G‑d against Amalek…" — "that He would have war and enmity against Amalek forever" — it would be clearer and simpler to write "For the hand of Y-ah is on the kes…" or the like. From its saying "For there is a hand on the throne of Y-ah" it is implied that "For there is a hand" — the oath of the Holy One, blessed be He — is (also) about the matter of "kes Y-ah," that His Name is not complete, etc.
18) Also in the verse in Tehillim (from which Rashi proves here "And when his name is erased, etc.") it says "their remembrance has perished."
19) And although the erasure of the remembrance of Amalek is "that the name of Amalek should not be mentioned" (Rashi, end of Parshas Ki Seitzei), nevertheless Rashi's custom is to write in the wording of the verse (and so it is in Sefer HaPardes of Rashi — cited in Torah Sheleimah there), unless there is a compelling reason to change it.
20) In Rashi's wording as cited in the Ramban here, the word "entirely" is absent (but — there are several other differences in the Ramban here from our Rashi), but it is present in the first printing of Rashi (though there — "of Eisav entirely") and elsewhere.
21) For "the Holy One, blessed be He, swore" refers to "that His Name is not complete, etc. until… is erased, etc.," but "And when his name is erased, the Name will be complete, etc." is a matter unto itself. This also sweetens why at the beginning of the matter Rashi writes "His Name" and "His throne" (with a vav) — because it continues from "the Holy One, blessed be He, swore," whereas afterward he writes "the Name complete and the throne complete" (and not "His Name" and "His throne")*. And what he writes at the end of his words, "behold, His throne** is complete" — that is because it follows the wording of the verse in Tehillim there.
*) One may also say that since he writes before this "And when his name is erased," referring to the name of Amalek, he must write "the Name" and not "His Name." And this is simple.
**) So it is in several printings. But in the first printing — "the throne."
22) Tehillim 9:7.
23) Amos 1:11.
24) Continuation of the verse in Tehillim there.
25) Seemingly one could answer the above questions: Rashi's proof, "as it is said, etc.," is for what he writes at first, "that His Name is not complete, etc. until… is erased, etc." And the proof is that from its saying "And G‑d… His throne" [a complete Name and a complete throne] after "their remembrance has perished," it is understood that before this His Name and throne are not complete. And since the verse there says: their remembrance has perished… (and then) And G‑d… His throne… (complete), he therefore adds (like a parenthetical statement, with no novelty in it) "And when his name is erased, the Name will be complete and the throne complete." However — this is a great strain to explain this way. For if the words "And when his name is erased, etc." contain no novelty beyond what he wrote before, and are the same content merely in different phrasing — then (a) even had he not added "And when his name is erased, etc." his proof would be understood, since it is the same content and the change is only in phrasing. (b) He would not need a proof from what is said in Tehillim, since this is understood from the verse in our parsha [especially since this matter is more compelled from our parsha than from Tehillim: here, the wording "kes Y-ah" is difficult (as above, Section 3), and therefore one must explain that it indicates "that His Name is not complete, etc.," whereas in Tehillim there is no (absolute) proof, for "a complete throne" is stated throughout the Torah, and also "a complete Name" — in the great majority, and what compels explaining there that this comes through "their remembrance has perished"? Especially since, simply, the main emphasis (in Tehillim) is (not on the words "And G‑d" and "His throne," but) that "G‑d sits forever," and likewise at the end of the verse — that "He has established His throne for judgment"]. And since Rashi needed to bring a proof from Tehillim at a time when the proof from our parsha is stronger, it is understood that in "And when his name is erased, etc." Rashi is introducing something novel beyond what he wrote before, and for this novelty he brings a proof from Tehillim. And the question returns to its place.
26) In contrast, had he said this to the generation that entered the Land and through Yehoshua, and at the end of his days (for if not now, when) — at the end of Ki Seitzei.
27) Rashbam and Sforno here.
28) Even according to the reading of the first printing — without the word "here" — "performed" is an expression of the past.
29) Rashbam on verse 15. And according to the Sforno there — only regarding the future.
30) In addition: According to Rashi, "And he called" refers to the name of the altar and not to Moshe (see below, Section 7).
31) See similarly in Vayeilech: "And G‑d said … Behold, you will lie … And now write for yourselves this song … which I swore" (31:16–21); "And Moshe wrote the song…" (ibid., 22); "And He commanded" (and Rashi explains — the Holy One, blessed be He) "Yehoshua…" (ibid., 23).
32) See above, p. 57, and Torah Ohr cited there, note 9.
33) One may also say: Since according to Rashi "And he called" refers to the name of the altar and not to Moshe (as below there), he therefore explains "And he said — Moshe."
34) With the additive vav on "Write" — at the same time.
35) So too in the Sforno on verse 14. But the Sforno (ibid., 15) explains that his saying "For there is a hand…" is the reason for his calling it "G‑d is my miracle," in keeping with his view (ibid., 14) that "And he built… and he called…" is also a fulfillment of this command, unlike according to Rashi.
36) As in the Sforno here.
37) Re'em here.
38) As for why Rashi does not also quote the word "nissi": one may say that the main difficulty, if we explain that the altar is so called, lies in the word "G‑d," which comes here separately (unlike in "Eliezer" and the like) and is the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and not in the word "nissi." And see below, note 45.
39) Similar to the name Eliezer, which indicates "אלקי אבי בעזרי" ("the G‑d of my father was my help") (Yisro 18:4). And see Rashbam here; Ramban, Vayishlach 33:20.
40) Similar to Rashi on Vayishlach there.
41) Also: In order to negate the explanation of the Sforno, it would have sufficed to explain this in passing in his comment on "G‑d is my miracle," as in Parshas Vayishlach there — where too one could explain like the Sforno, "he called Him in his prayer the G‑d, may He be blessed, etc." — and nevertheless Rashi does not negate that explanation in a separate comment, "to it — to the altar," but explains it only together with the matter following it, writing "Not that the altar is called, etc. he called the name of the altar after the miracle."
42) As in his commentary on Parshas Vayishlach there. In addition: From the lengthy wording of Rashi, "remembers the miracle that the Omnipresent performed: G‑d is our miracle," it is implied that the name of the altar does not indicate the concept of "G‑d is my miracle" (like the name Eliezer, whose meaning is "the G‑d of my father was my help"), but rather that it indicates "the miracle (with the definite article) that the Omnipresent performed" — the miracle performed in the war of Amalek — and from this one comes to "G‑d is our miracle." This is not understood: For from the plain wording of the verse, "And he called its name 'G‑d is my miracle,'" it is implied (similar to Vayishlach there) that the name of the altar indicates "G‑d is my miracle"?
43) As for what he explains in Parshas Vayishlach there, "And so we find regarding Moshe … he called the name of the altar" — that is because in Parshas Vayishlach he is not concerned with explaining the verse of Parshas Beshalach (which comes later), but only with bringing an example and "parallel" to his explanation in Vayishlach, "Not that the altar is called 'G‑d of Israel,' etc." He therefore abbreviated, and what he wrote, "we find regarding Moshe," means — in the actions and events of Moshe. The word "he called," however, is difficult to reconcile (see below, Section 8).
44) As for why Rashi writes "Not that the altar is called 'G‑d'" (and not "G‑d is my miracle") — see below, note 45.
45) On this basis one will understand why at the beginning of his comment he writes "The Holy One, blessed be He, performed for us* a miracle" — which seems superfluous — for this follows from his explanation "And he called — its name, of the altar," and therefore at the beginning of the matter he explains the first thing the altar would cause to be proclaimed: "The Holy One, blessed be He, performed a miracle for us" — the Holy One's performing of the miracle (but not that G‑d Himself is our miracle (see above, note 42)). And this is also why he immediately writes "Not that the altar is called 'G‑d'" (and not "G‑d is my miracle") "but rather one who mentions, etc.": the name of the altar brought to mind only the event of the miracle, and not that G‑d is my miracle. Only at the end of his comment (after writing "remembers the miracle that the Omnipresent performed") does he add "G‑d is our miracle" — in order to explain the verse's "G‑d is my miracle"**.
*) So it is in the first printing. In most printings: "performed a miracle for us here." One may say that Rashi's intention (according to this version) is an added emphasis, that the first thing the altar caused to be proclaimed is the performing of the miracle in the war of Amalek, and not "my miracle" in general.
**) On this basis it is also sweetened why it is specifically at the end of his comment that Rashi writes "G‑d is our miracle" (whereas before this he writes: the Holy One, blessed be He; the Omnipresent) — for only there does he follow the wording of the verse.
46) See Rashi, Yisro 19:14.
47) See also above, note 43.
48) [OCR unclear]
49) [OCR unclear]
51) See Rashi, beginning of Parshas Vayigash.
52) Rashi on our parsha 17:14.
53) Rashi, Ki Seitzei 25:18.
54) Our parsha 15, "טויט" [OCR unclear].
55) Our parsha 15:13. Rashi there.
56) See Rashi there: "From here, etc."
*56) Therefore also regarding Amalek — "his name."
57) See Rashi, beginning of Parshas Mishpatim.
58) Although the fulfillment of the mitzvos must be with acceptance of the yoke that is above reason — especially the matter of erasing Amalek (see Torah Ohr 85a ff., and elsewhere, and at length in Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, Parshas Zachor) — nevertheless it is known that even the fulfillment of the "chukim," which are above reason, must be with inwardness and vitality, etc. (see Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 898). Note Bamidbar Rabbah 19:3, 6; Tanchuma, Chukas 6.
*58) [OCR unclear]
59) Bereishis 3:15.
60) In our parsha — 14:4.
61) Rashi on our parsha 15:18.
62) On all that follows, see Torah Ohr 85a ff.; Derech Mitzvosecha, "איסור ג"ה" and the mitzvah of remembering the deed of Amalek; discourses for Parshas Zachor.
63) Vayikra 5:8.
64) This is also the reason that he "cut off the heads of his warriors" — severing the head from the body — measure for measure.
65) On this basis one understands the benefit of the erasure of Amalek [for seemingly: since Amalek's having "cooled you and made you lukewarm from your boiling" is (not because he showed the weakness of the Jewish people, for on the contrary — when "Yehoshua weakened Amalek… by the sword" all saw the might of the Jewish people, as above, Section 10, but rather) similar to the "scoundrel" who, "although he was burned, cooled it in the eyes of others" — what use is erasing him altogether, since he has already brought about the coldness in them?]: for when the kelipah of Amalek is nullified, the other nations will be as they are in themselves.
66) Bereishis 47, 2 (Megaleh Amukos, siman 208).
67) See Daas Zekeinim MiBaalei HaTosafos on this verse.
68) See Chagigah 13a. And see Likkutei Torah, Emor 37a.
69) In the discourse beginning "Vaeschanan" in Ohr HaTorah (p. 113 ff.) it is explained that "500" is higher than "15," since 500 is the level of the middos of Arich (which are above Y-ah). What is cited in the text follows what is written in Ohr HaTorah, Bereishis there (and see also Likkutei Torah there).
70) See Ra'aya Mehemna in Zohar III, 124, end of side b, and Nitzotzei Oros there.
71) See similarly Derech Mitzvosecha 14a; see there.
72) See the Hemshech of the Yom HaHilula (the discourse beginning "Basi LeGani"), ch. 11 ff. and the end of ch. 20, that through netzach one brings about the drawing down of the supernal treasure, which is the revelation of the inwardness and Essence of Ein Sof, blessed be He.
Key Lesson
This Sicha teaches that G‑d's oath against Amalek is not a distant matter for a later generation: His "enmity" is in force at every moment, and until Amalek's name is entirely erased, His Name and throne are not complete. Inwardly, Amalek is whatever cuts the mind off from the heart, and it is overcome not by reasoning alone but by an essential forcefulness above reason. Through this service in the time of exile, a Jew not only removes the lack but adds a higher completeness in G‑d's Name and throne.