The “Ambiguous Phrase” is a fascinating phenomena in Tanakh: it consists of a biblical verse missing one component, enabling two contradictory readings. Ambiguous phraseology provides a broad platform for deciding between two possible interpretations. This is a prevalent phenomenon throughout the Tanakh; it appears more likely deliberate than an oversight. Perhaps the reader is not meant to decide in favor of one option over the other, but rather to engage in a multivalent reading, where both readings are simultaneously possible and important.
The readings of Shabbat Zachor include two phenomena of ambiguous phraseology - one in the Torah reading and one in the Haftarah. The multivalent readings in each of these occurrences contain relevant messages for our time.
“He Feared not God”
The unusual commandment to obliterate the memory of Amalek is accompanied by an explanation detailing the terrible evil of a strong nation that targets a budding nation, specifically attacking its feeble stragglers:
Remember that which Amalek did to you, on the way, as you came out of Egypt; how he met you on the way, and struck down those who lagged behind you, when you were faint and weary; and feared not God (Deut. 25:17-18).
The words, “When you were faint and weary,” are parenthetical; they intensify Amalek’s immoral behavior in taking advantage of the nation during its moment of weakness. The ambiguous phrase, “And feared not God,” can be understood to describe Amalek’s evil. It can also be interpreted as part of the description of Israel’s spiritual condition at the moment that Israel was attacked by the Amalekites. Both possibilities raise difficulties: if it describes Amalek’s evil, it is unclear why Amalek’s absence of faith constitutes reasonable grounds for its destruction. If the phrase characterizes Israel’s spiritual situation, it makes little sense that Israel’s failure to fear God would be juxtaposed to Amalek’s punishment. However, if the phrase is read as multivalent, the duality expands the idea of both possible readings.
In relation to those who are not from the Israelite nation, ‘God-fearing’ seems to be a moral category: those who are “God-fearing” recognize the divine image in people, which prevents him from committing evil acts against another (e.g. Gen. 20:1, 42:18; Ex. 1:18). With regard to the nation of Israel, ‘God-fearing’ refers to their acknowledgement of divine morality as a supreme value, even when it seems to contradict human morality. This is the meaning of God’s words to Abraham after he adheres to the Divine command to bind his son: “For now I know that you are one who fears God” (Gen. 22:12).
What is the significance of the duality of the phrase, “feared not God?” This duality reinforces two essential principles of Jewish morality:
-
Destroying the enemy is not simply a defensive posture, but involves a religious imperative.
-
The parameter for identifying the eternal enemy is the extent of their “fear of God.”
The essential flaw of the Exodus generation that is not “God-fearing”, is that they fail to adhere to God’s instruction to disregard Egypt and her evil society: “As you have seen Egypt today you shall not see them again forevermore” (Exodus 14:13). Instead, the nation expresses a recurring desire to return to Egypt and enjoy its comforts. This flaw can be corrected through the encounter with a new evil enemy and the corresponding religious imperative to destroy that enemy. By linking the destruction of Amalek with the cessation of other external threats (“When God lets you rest from all your enemies”) the Torah prevents an illusion of security from dimming the memory of the past and blurring the sharp difference between friend and enemy. To identify those of the nations who “do not fear God” enables us to identify the enemy that warrants eternal destruction. An obligation to remember one’s enemies for eternity prevents the erosion of the recognition of evil in the world.
“He seized the corner of his robe”
In the haftara of Parashat Zachor, Samuel was commanded to tell Saul that God rejects his kingship due to a flaw in Saul’s fear of God. This is expressed in Saul’s inability to identify the danger in saving the life of the king of Amalek. Samuel’s pained response to this command is described explicitly: “Samuel was distressed, and he cried out to the Lord all the night” (1 Sam. 15:11). Regardless, Samuel does as he was commanded, and sounds God’s harsh rebuke to Saul.
Samuel’s departure is accompanied by a descriptive scene:
Samuel turned to leave, and he seized the hem of his robe, and it tore
(1 Sam, 15:27).
Omitting the identity of the one who seized the robe makes room for three possibilities, each of which is supported either by the specific narrative context or the broader general context of the Samuel/Saul narratives. According to the first possibility, it is Samuel who tears Saul’s robe to indicate the severance of his monarchy. In the ancient world, the robe was a symbol of status and power. The hem of Saul’s coat is mentioned once again when David meets him in the cave and rips the hem of his robe (1 Sam. 24:4); this confirms Saul's suspicion that David is his successor (1 Sam. 24:20).
A second possibility is that Saul tears Samuel’s robe in an attempt to prevent him from leaving: “Please, honor me … and return with me” (1 Sam. 15:30). Samuel’s robe is mentioned on two other occasions: his mother makes him a robe (ibid., 2:19), and he is identified by his robe in the scene at Endor (28:14), indicating that the robe is a significant marker of Samuel’s stature.
A third possibility is that Samuel tore his own robe, as a sign of mourning for the loss of Saul’s kingship. Tearing a garment is a prevalent expression of grief throughout Tanakh.
This multivalent phrase teaches us an important lesson regarding the theory of regime change. Samuel had reason to delight in Saul’s failure and his removal from kingship. Samuel had originally objected to kingship, an objection that was compounded by the rejection of his own sons as leaders. Yet, Samuel accompanies and aids Saul as king, in spite of his repeated violations of the prophet’s instructions. Even when Saul takes pity on the king of a murderous nation and prevents a long-awaited unequivocal victory from his people, Samuel grieves his task of informing Saul of the termination of his kingship.
The symbolic act of tearing the robe is therefore accompanied by mutual pain and shared grief: for Saul, over failure and his loss of the monarchy, and for Samuel, over the breaking of the deep bond forged between a mentor and his protege (despite his failings):
He said before Him: Master of the Universe, you compared me to Moshe and Aharon … just as Moshe and Aharon did not see the downfall of their creation in their own life, spare me from seeing the downfall of my own creation in my life (Ta’anit 5b).
May the demise of our own evil enemies turn days of mourning into joyous times, with a deep appreciation for the dedication of our leaders who, despite their mistakes, want what is the best for their people (Esther 10:3).