By Marco Del Monte
Shabbat Zachor
The Shabbat preceding Purim is called Shabbat Zachor. On this occasion, it is customary to take out a second Sefer Torah to read the parashah that reminds us of what Amalek, the ancestor of Haman, did to us.
I always find myself wondering what logical thread might connect these topics: Tetzaveh, Zachor, Purim.
In this Shabbat, there is an interesting game of mirrors between Moses our Teacher and Amalek.
In the parashah of Tetzaveh, in fact, the name of Moses does not appear: when Hashem wants to destroy the people, Moses intercedes and asks to save them, and he does so by offering to be erased in place of the people themselves. The Sages explain that because of this request, his name does not appear in this parashah: a Tzaddik renounces even his own presence in order to save the people. On the other hand, on this Shabbat, the second reading explicitly asks for another person to be erased, Amalek, the wicked one, the one who claims to exist in order to annihilate the people: a righteous person renounces being present in order to save, a wicked person claims to be present in order to annihilate; an absence that saves and a presence that destroys. Another interesting role reversal, through the antipodal use of an instrument of holiness (Kedushah), is presented to us by the figure of Aaron the High Priest and Ahasuerus. The Parashah describes the garments of the High Priest, the very same ones that will be worn in mockery, in the future, by Ahasuerus. In one case one dresses to serve Hashem, in another one dresses to glorify oneself; in one case matter is used for holiness, in another holiness is used for matter; in one case the garment brings Kiddush (sanctification), in another, it brings chillul (desecration). In this Pirandellian context, reality turns out to be multiform and can be misleading: can an absence or a presence always be positive or negative? Is using an instrument of holiness always positive? Among the questions that will be asked of the soul on high, there will be a fundamental one: "Did you understand the thing that is inside the thing?" (Shabbat 31). Did you manage to comprehend beyond the misleading appearance of situations? Have you therefore read correctly, and not "backwards", the "Megillah of Esther", that is, the revelation of what is hidden? Amalek, doubt par excellence, plays on ambiguity; this is not about the richness and contradictoriness of Talmudic opinions, which are equally true and the words of the living G-d, leading to the construction of different Halachic paths, but rather about a pluralism of baseless opinions and ways of seeing, which lead only to divisions and confusion.
Today, more than ever, there is a felt need to make the many masks—too often mistaken for faces—of various forms of communication and information pluralism fall away.
V'nahafoch hu… and everything was inverted
Translated from the Italian with Google Gemini. The Italian text is the original.