Transcript

Let's take a look at the Ramban here at the end of Ki Tetse, Devarim 25:17.

זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק כבר הזכרתי המדרש שדרשו בו בספרי יכול בלבך כשהוא אומר לא תשכח הרי שכחת הלב אמורה הא מה אני מקיים זכור שתהא שונה בפיך וכן בספרי זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק בפה ולא תשכח בלב ולא ידעתי מה היא הזכירה הזו בפה.

Apparently the pshat just in that question of the Ramban, what's the pshat in the drashos chazal? So apparently even though one could have said that Amalek is both a mitzvas asseh and a mitzvas lo ta'aseh, and the ein hachi nami that zachor doesn't really add to what lo tishkach says, but it's לאו עליו בעשה ולא תעשה. But apparently what chazal are saying is that yes that can be the case, but that's not the first line of interpretation. That min hastam, again, there is such a thing as kefel halashon, there is such a thing as לאו עליו בעשה ולא תעשה. But min hastam, when it lends itself to it, then the asseh and the lo ta'aseh should have different domains. And clearly that's the pshat in chazal when they say yachol belibcha. Heyos shehadavar ken, so apparently the Ramban thinks that stam a zechira bepeh of saying I remember ma'aseh Amalek is not so different from shichachas halev, that it's not clear what chazal were asking, excuse me, what chazal were answering. When chazal answered shetehei shona beficha, so they're indicating that no, the asseh has a different thrust than the lo ta'aseh. Something entirely different, additional. Stam zechira bepeh is so, I don't know, so similar to the shichachas halev. So that's what the Ramban says. So the first possibility the Ramban considers:

אם לומר שנקרא פרשת עמלק בציבור ונמצאנו למדים מן התורה בשניה זכור ויסמוך למקרא מגילה מן התורה.

So the Ramban's first interpretation of the chazal is that zachor bepeh means not just zechira, but kriya mitoch hasefer, in which case when the mishna in Megilla mentions the Arba Parshiyos and says... As the second of the Arba Parshiyos is Parshas Zakhor, so the timing of Parshas Zakhor is mid'rabbanan, but the mitzvah which we're fulfilling through Parshas Zakhor is min hatorah, according to this understanding of the drashas Hazal. Where did the Ramban get from—so we understand that again he thinks that there's more to zekhirah than just mentioning, so we understand that he moves from just stam zekhirah to keriah. Where did he get that—that the drashas Hazal means keriah b'tzibbur, that it means keriah b'tzibbur? So we'll come back to that

בלי נדר אם ירצה השם. והנכון בעיני שהוא לומר שלא תשכח מה שעשה לנו עמלק עד שנמחה שמו מתחת השמים ונספר זה לבנינו ולדורותינו לומר להם כך עשה לנו הרשע.

So whereas according to the first mahalakh in the Ramban, so bepeh means keriah, so according to the second, bepeh means unesaper levaneynu uledoroseinu, to transmit to the next generation, ולכך נצטוינו למחות את שמו. So that's what the bepeh is mehadesh, that there's a mitzvah of masorah to transmit ledoros habaim מה שעשה לנו עמלק. But in this context, the Ramban makes clear, the acharoynim, the Rambam, the Chinukh, the acharoynim say the same, it's—it's suggested by the psukim, that mitzvas zekhirah is linked to mitzvas mechiyas Amalek, that mitzvas zekhirah is to facilitate mitzvas mechiyah,

ונספר זה לבנינו ולדורותינו לומר להם כך עשה לנו הרשע ולכך נצטוינו למחות את שמו.

The Rambam also writes:

ומצות עשה לזכור תמיד מעשיו הרעים ואריבתו כדי להעורר איבתו.

kedei le'orer eivaso, kedei le'orer eivaso that when the opportunity will be at hand, so that we'll be mekayem the mitzvah of mechiyas Amalek. Now the Gemara in Sanhedrin in the second perek says that שלש מצות נצטוו ישראל בכניסתן לארץ. The Rambam quotes the Gemara in the beginning of Hilkhos Melakhim: limnos lahem melekh, להכרית זרעו של עמלק, ולבנות להם בית הבחירה. So what do you mean shalosh mitzvos? All the mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz also were נוהגות בשעת כניסתן לארץ. So clearly what it means—the Rambam says this befeyrush in Sefer Hamitzvos and as does the Chinukh—that it means that shalosh mitzvos nistavu Yisrael is hovas tzibbur. It's not a hovas yachid to limnos melekh, it's not a hovas yachid to build a Beis Hamikdash, it's a hovas tzibbur. Hu hadin, hu hatam, it's a hovas tzibbur להכרית זרעו של עמלק. Likh'ora, that's what's reflected in the Ramban, right? In the Ramban's first mahalakh when the Ramban considers that what bepeh means is keriah, so the Ramban says לומר שנקרא פרשת עמלק בציבור. So we asked, where did haniha that the Ramban says the pshat in Hazal has to be that bepeh is something which is clearly being mosef on just maintaining a memory and stam bepeh it has to mean more than that? So mimaila it means keriah. Where did he get tzibbur from? Because mitzvas mechiyas Amalek is—is a hovas tzibbur, so mistaber if—if bepeh means keriah, then it means keriah b'tzibbur. According to the second mahalach that it means masorah, so then hagam that Mechiyas Amalek is a chovas tzibur, but the way the masorah is transmitted is av l'vno, harav l'talmido. The Ramban again when he's presenting the first mahalach in zachor b'peh שנקרא פרשת עמלק בציבור, so the Ramban says and if that's the pshat in zachor b'peh, so נמצאנו למדין מן התורה בשמיעת זכור, it would mean that parshas zachor is d'Oraisa. But then the Ramban also says ויהיה אסמכתא למקרא מגילה מן התורה. It would provide an asmachta for the mitzva of krias ha-megilla. So l'chora you see that for the Ramban the story of the megilla is a kiyum in zechiras ma'aseh Amalek. L'chora siyuya for that perspective from the Gemara in Megilla when שלחו לה אסתר לחכמים כתבוני לדורות. Megillas Esther should be committed to writing and should be incorporated into kisvei hakodesh. So

שלחו לה הלא כתבתי לך שלישים שלישים ולא רבעים עד שמצאו לו מקרא כתוב בתורה כתוב זאת זכרון בספר. כתוב זאת מה שכתוב כאן ובמשנה תורה,

the parshas of Amalek in Beshalach and Ki Seitzei. זכרון מה שכתוב בנביאים with the Shaul. בספר מה שכתוב במגילה. So hagam here that the Gemara is not talking about the mitzva of krias ha-megilla, it's talking about the ksivas ha-megilla, but the Gemara clearly highlights that in context of ksivas ha-megilla that it's recording ma'aseh Amalek. It's recording ma'aseh Amalek. The Rambam supported by a different Gemara has a different emphasis within krias ha-megilla. After he lists in the hakdama to the Yad the taryag mitzvos, then the Rambam says there are other mitzvos which are m'derabbanan and he explains why derabbanans don't constitute bal tosif. A, they're delineated as such, they're not attributed to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, they're identified as derabbanans and B, they come to reinforce, to foster, to protect something in the Torah. They're not independent. אלא כך אנו אומרים, so the Rambam gives for instance שהנביאים עם בית דין תיקנו וציוו לקרוא המגילה בעונתה. The tzivuy is not attributed to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, no, it was a davar she'be'minyan, the Sanhedrin introduced it. What d'Oraisa-dik concepts... What mitzvos is krias ha-megilla designed to foster, to be enforced? So aleph, k'dei lehazkir

שבחו של הקדוש ברוך הוא ותשועה שעשה לנו והיה קרוב לשועינו כדי לברכו ולהללו וכדי להודיע לדורות הבאים שאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלהים קרובים אליו כה' אלהינו בכל קראנו אליו.

So krias ha-megilla is intended for shevach and hallel. But krias ha-megilla was also introduced by chazal

להודיע לדורות הבאים שאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלהים קרובים אליו כה' אלהינו בכל קראנו אליו,

that we should see a historical example and manifestation of the Torah's havtacha that Hakadosh Baruch Hu, if the tzibbur does teshuva and cry out, so Hakadosh Baruch Hu will always, always, without exception, accept their tefilla. The story of the megilla turns on the לך כנוס את כל היהודים, on the teshuva u'tefilla is what changed the trajectory. Where did the Rambam get this from? It's a very different perspective on sort of what we're supposed to hear between the lines of the megilla. Not focusing so much on who the enemy is, who the adversary is as the Ramban's as the Ramban is emphasizing, but rather how we overcame them with the koach of tefilla. So if you take a look, there's sort of one line hidden away here in the Gemara. The Gemara beginning on yud-alef amud-beis tells us how different Amoraim would give an introduction before they started darshing the megilla. And on yud-alef amud-alef, the Gemara says רב מתנא אמר מהכא. Rav Masna, this was his introduction to Megillas Esther, yud-alef amud-alef in Megilla, כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלהים קרובים אליו. This is the Rambam's Gemara. That's where the Rambam got it from. That what we're supposed to hear between the lines of the megilla, what we're supposed to recognize is the awesome koach of the tefillas hatzibbur. Obviously the two perspectives are different, they're not in any way contradictory or mutually exclusive, but two very different perspectives. The Ramban again le-maskana doesn't go with the pshat that zachor refers to קריאה מן הספר בציבור, again he opts for the understanding of lesaper lebanenu u'ledorotenu, but other rishonim do accept that. So for instance you have the Rosh in, it's actually we should get to it soon בעזרת השם בלי נדר. The Rosh in Shloshah She'achalu. The Gemara tells a story that Rebbe Elazar once came in and they were short one for a minyan, so he meshachrer his eved. So the Gemara says how could he do such a thing? le'olam bahem ta'avodu, it's an issur asei to be meshachrer an eved kena'ani. The Gemara says no, it was for a mitzvah. So the Rosh discusses so what mitzvah is it that justifies shichrur avadim so he says he thinks it was to say davar shebikdusha. I, saying a davar shebikdusha is only derabbanan? He says yeah but if you have a derabbanan betzibbur so that's alim even to allow to override an asei min HaTorah. He said now you could have said pshat that it was for Parshas Zachor and they were missing one for the minyan for Parshas Zachor and that would have been a mitzvah de'oraisa where you needed the minyan. The Rosh doesn't think that's pshat because it sounds like it was stam a regular day or something when he came into the shtiebel and they were one short for a minyan. Doesn't sound like it was davka Parshas Zachor but in that context the Rosh is meforesh you know you could have said that he was being meshachrer his eved for a de'oraisa כגון לקרות פרשת זכור. The other place where this is mentioned in the Rishonim as well that the acharonim all quote is also in Brachos on the beginning of the second perek. The Gemara has a rather cryptic allusion whether כל התורה בלשון הקודש נאמרה או בכל לשון נאמרה. It's not clear what's that referring to כל התורה בלשון הקודש נאמרה for purposes of what או בכל לשון נאמרה for purposes of what? So Tosafos quotes from Rashi likros baTorah so Tosafos says how can that be pshat krias HaTorah is only derabbanan? Tosafos says no it means Parshas Zachor maybe Tosafos mentions Parshas Parah also it means Parshas Zachor. So those Rishonim that's the basis for the yesh omrim in Shulchan Aruch that Parshas Zachor is min HaTorah again for the Ramban the Ramban doesn't remain with that lemaskana. Rambam doesn't have it either that Parshas Zachor should be should be should be a de'oraisa you don't have it in the Rambam either. Okay stop here.