The parsha of Zachor was a few weeks ago. I read something on the Aish website about Amalek and his descendants. Haman is the most famous, and that is fitting since the parsha is read around Purim. It is a discussion, though, about the command to stamp out Amalek and his descendants. The article, “A Question of Race?” by Rabbi Ari Kahn, has this though:

We also know that Rabbi Akiva was either himself a convert or a child of converts:

We can hardly appoint Rabbi Akiva because perhaps Rabban Gamaliel will bring a curse on him because he has no ancestral merit. (Brachot 27b. See comments of Rav Nissim Gaon.)

Based on the combination of these sources, there are many that understand that the descendant of Haman who learned and taught Torah in B’nai Brak was, in fact, Rabbi Akiva.

However it is also pointed out in the same article that “It was taught in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: “God swore by His throne of glory, ‘If converts come from any nation they will be accepted, but from the progeny of Amalek and his household they will not be accepted.'” (Mechilta, end of B’shalach. Also see Midrash Tanchuma Ki Tezta 11, P’sikta D’rav Kahana 3)” How can this be?

Obviously, it was ignored. Perhaps there is a good pilpul about how the prohibition for the conversion of Amalekites is laid aside, but I don’t know it.

Perhaps that progeny in this case doesn’t refer to biological progeny, but cultural.

In any event, I think that the important part is not how to reconcile a command to seemingly commit genocide, but a thought that struck me when reading the text itself.

“Remember what Amalek did to you by the way, when you came forth out of Egypt; how he met you by the way, and struck at your rear, all who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary; and he did not fear G-d. Therefore it shall be, when the Lord your G-d has given you rest from all your enemies around, in the land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance to possess, that you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget it. (Deut. 25:17-19)”

It struck me that Amalek used a good old-fashioned cavalry romp. This is what I train to do monthly. Get into the rear of the main force and hit the support elements. Strike where you are not expected. Sow fear and confusion. Sharon himself did this crossing the Suez Canal. The result was the complete collapse of two Egyptian divisions that let to a full on rout. Thus ended the western part of the Yom Kippur war. What is so wrong with fighting smarter, not harder? Amalek as a person might be faulted, but his methods of war are fine.

It seems to make no sense. We are commanded to blot out the remembrance of Amalek, but also not to forget it. What gives?

The remembering that is blotted out in a time of peace and comfort is not the name of the commander. The remembrance that needs to be put aside is the fear that was caused. There is a time for everything, a time for war, and a time for peace. The situation once in the land that the Lord gives is one of calm, peace, and tranquility. We need to remember that. We need to live in the now, view the situation as it is today, not be haunted by the ghosts of the past. The problem with post-traumatic stress isn’t the stress, it is the post, the after the fact. Being stressed in a time of trauma is fine. Being stressed long after the trauma is not.

This passage certainly has use today with the disengagement in Gaza. I’ll sidestep the debate on right or wrong. Something that does bother me, though, is that we as Jews are still being held emotionally hostage by the failure of Oslo. There has been a lot of anger and dissillusionment. Certainly modern-day Amaleks besieged us. We were harassed, hassled, and had fear put in us. That fear needs to be put down, the remembrance of the trauma put in its proper place. There is a time for everything and the time we are in is now, not then. This is Disengagement, not Oslo.