Save "It’s All Fun and Games Until It Turns Into Mass Murder"
It’s All Fun and Games Until It Turns Into Mass Murder
(יז) זָכ֕וֹר אֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֥ה לְךָ֖ עֲמָלֵ֑ק בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֥ם מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃ (יח) אֲשֶׁ֨ר קָֽרְךָ֜ בַּדֶּ֗רֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּ֤ב בְּךָ֙ כָּל־הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִ֣ים אַֽחַרֶ֔יךָ וְאַתָּ֖ה עָיֵ֣ף וְיָגֵ֑עַ וְלֹ֥א יָרֵ֖א אֱלֹקִֽים׃ (יט) וְהָיָ֡ה בְּהָנִ֣יחַ ה' אֱלֹקֶ֣יךָ ׀ לְ֠ךָ מִכָּל־אֹ֨יְבֶ֜יךָ מִסָּבִ֗יב בָּאָ֙רֶץ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יְהוָֽה־אֱ֠לֹקֶיךָ נֹתֵ֨ן לְךָ֤ נַחֲלָה֙ לְרִשְׁתָּ֔הּ תִּמְחֶה֙ אֶת־זֵ֣כֶר עֲמָלֵ֔ק מִתַּ֖חַת הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם לֹ֖א תִּשְׁכָּֽח׃ (פ)
(17) Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt— (18) how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. (19) Therefore, when the LORD your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!

(יח) אשר קרך בדרך - לשון מקרה ...

(18) אשר קרך בדרך,[who surprised you on the march] meaning “accidentally,” unforeseen, by chance....

1. There was a king of Amalek called Agag, and Haman is referred to in the megillah at an Agagite (Esther 3:1,10). Besides this possible descent, do you see any similarity between how Amalek acted here and how Haman acts in the megillah? (Hint: Think about the meaning of the word Purim.)
2. Why does the Torah command us to blot out the memory of Amalek? What human emotions are in play here? Do you find anything problematic about this mitzvah?
Mass Murder in the Megillah?
1. Read Esther 9:16-17. How do you react to this detail of the story?
2. Read 8:11-13. Are these verses about self-defense or something else?
3. Read 8:17. Why would someone pretend to be Jewish? And does this detail support or contradict the claim of self-defense?
4. Read 9:1-6. Do these verses support or contradict the interpretation that the killing of thousands of non-Jews was in self-defense? Try to argue it both ways. Consider Malbim's comment below.
5. What's ironic about this whole situation? And what does the irony suggest about the nature of the Book of Esther?

(ה) ויכו, הנה ודאי לא היה הרשות נתונה ליהודים להרוג את כל מי שירצו, כי לא היה כתוב בהספרים רק להנקם מצורריהם, ..., לא היו הורגים רק האויבים שאיבתם אל היהודים היה מפורסם שהיו מגזימים להרע להם, אבל לא את השונאים (כי ההבדל בין אויב ושונא שהאויב איבתו גלויה, והשונא אין שנאתו גלויה) רק ויעשו בשונאיהם כרצונם, שהיו יכולים לגנות אותם ולהשפילם :

Of course, the Jews were not given permission to kill anyone they wished, for it was only written in the decrees that they could take revenge on their oppressors… they only killed their enemies whose animosity toward the Jews was public and who threatened evil against them, but not their haters (for the difference between an “enemy” and a “hater” is that an enemy’s hatred is evident, whereas a hater’s hatred is hidden), for they only did to their haters “as they wished,” that is–they were able to denigrate them and to degrade them [and not kill them].

Monday The Rabbi Saw “Basterds”, Rabbi Mark Diamond, December 2009
For me, Inglourious Basterds is a modern-day Midrash on the Purim story. With apologies to my traditional friends, I see the Biblical Book of Esther as an ancient Jewish fable of justice and revenge. To wit, what would happen if the tables were turned and we had power over our enemies? With all the merrymaking and child-centered focus of the Purim holiday, we tend to forget that the Jews of Shushan kill 75,000 of their foes toward the end of the narrative (Esther 9:16). Then they go out and have a big party to celebrate their success.

Put in stark terms, was this too good to be true? Or too bad to be true? No one I respect would disagree with the premise that it would have been glorious had a band of Jewish soldiers killed Hitler and his top henchmen. But what do we make of scalping the heads of enemy combatants? Or of killing innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (a.k.a. “collateral damage”)? Is violent revenge the victim’s only legitimate response to terror and brutality?

The Dark Side of Purim, Shaul Magid, March 2014
There is a story about blotting out Amalek told in the name of the Hasidic master Zvi Elimelekh of Dinov (1783-1841). I heard the story from Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach. During the Purim feast, Zvi Elimelekh suddenly stopped the festivities and said, “Saddle the horses and get the carriages, it is time to blot out Amalek.” His Hasidim were petrified. “What could the master mean?” Being obedient disciples, they got in their carriages and followed their rebbe. He rode into town to a local inn where the Polish peasants (the Amalekites of his day?) were engaged in their own drunken bash.
The rebbe and his disciples entered the inn. When the peasants saw them, they stopped dancing. The music stopped. Everyone circled around the rebbe and the Jews as they walked to the center of the dance floor. The room was silent. The rebbe looked at one of the peasants and put out his hand with his palm to the ceiling. Silence. The peasants looked at one another. Suddenly one of them stepped forward and took the rebbe’s hand. They slowly started dancing. The musicians began playing. In a matter of minutes, all the Hasidim and peasants were dancing furiously with one another.
You want to blot out Amalek? Go to the mosque at the Tomb of the Patriarchs. Or any mosque. Reach out your hand. And dance. That is how you blot out Amalek.