March 1, 2024 | Adar I 21, 5784
Last week I wrote about Amalek. The nation of Amalek sought out the Jewish people in the desert and Haman seemed to have selected the Jews, both for no apparent reason. The focus of that essay was to understand why they hate and the teachable lesson for us - to actively remove the deflection and externalization of problems upon others. But following this I was posed an important question, we may now understand why they hate, but why do they hate us?
The answer I’d suggested is that when someone is lacking and externalizing their issues, naturally it will land on someone who has the very thing they lack. This is exponentially exacerbated when the thing coveted on the deepest of levels is not physical at all, but a spiritual consciousness that we ourselves have become removed from and that the world so deeply seeks. I’d like to expand slightly on this with a quick disclaimer that I am only suggesting a very small idea to a much more complex topic with many more facets than discussed here.
Today I’d like to explore this with a deeper dimension. It seems that if the antagonist in the Purim story is the energy of Amalek, then it stands to reason that the protagonist would be the opposite energy.
We began explaining previously that this can be understood on a basic level as Amalek, in an effort to deflect responsibility, blames his shortcomings on others. In that case the opposite stands to reason as a willingness to accept responsibility and thereby focusing inward and upward. This is hinted to in the Bnei Yissaschar, who explains that if we are to be the positive energy (Kedusha) of Da’as (i.e. knowledge) then the negative energy (Sitra Achra) of Da’as (i.e. knowledge) in the concept of Amalek1. There’s clearly something deeper here which we’ll come back to. But first, on a simple level, what is he deflecting responsibility from and how does this cause him to lash out at us?
I listened to a powerful podcast episode this week entitled “Why the Kids Aren’t Alright” between Bari Weis and author Abigail Shrier. There are some great ideas there and I highly recommend a listen, but there was one idea that stood out to me in context of our topic. One of the fascinating and troubling noted trends with kids today is an unwillingness to accept responsibility. They don’t want to get a driver's license, move out of their parents house, get married or have children. Shrier suggests that this is because kids are given too much freedom too young, and not enough responsibility as they grow. The “gentle parenting” method for example has parents instead of firmly guiding their children, rather to empower their toddlers with freedom in the form of endless options and decisions. Not providing strong enough guidance and structure overwhelms the child who truly does not know what’s best. Instead of them building confidence, they become overwhelmed learning not how to make good decisions, but that decisions themselves are daunting and unknowable. As they get older, they are also receiving less responsibility. Whereas previously there might be many siblings, chores and other familial responsibilities, many of these have been stripped away. This removes opportunity for the positive reinforcement and empowering feeling of success and achievement. You see, on a human level, as much as we seek freedom, we desperately need structure and guidance. In an environment where there are no wrong answers, there are no right answers. Without consequences we cannot discover bounds and develop resilience on the way. As we age, not being given responsibility further reinforces this experience of weakness and fragility, making for a difficult life forward.
The result of all of this is anxiety, a feeling of overwhelming weakness, helplessness and dread of what may come one's way.
I’d seen a fascinating tweet/x post focusing on the same podcast. The topic resonated deeply with this woman, explaining that already from childhood, her entire life had been ridden with endless anxiety. She became anorexic at an early age and became endlessly triggered by anything remotely - albeit completely unrelatedly or unintentionally - weight related. Someone saying one a “scale from one to ten” would trigger her for example. Everything external to her was the problem, until she met a skilled therapist who taught her that the answer to anxiety is the opposite of what she’d always believed. Instead of blaming society and others for her pain and suffering, she must accept that her anxiety is within. The answer was for her not to avoid the pain but welcome it, become comfortable being uncomfortable and develop the muscle to fight it.
I’d like to shift gears for a moment to a Kabbalistic concept. The Bnei Yissaschar on Adar2 expounds that the source of the soul is spiritual and therefore half remains in the heavens and the other half incarnated3. He continues that a perspective to understanding our objective in life is called Mesiras Nefesh (giving of one’s soul). The objective being a reuniting or reconnection between both halves of the soul. Often, this is understood as giving one’s life physically i.e. death. He explains that this is not actually the primary intent. Rather, the idea is to align our human selves with our higher selves, hereby connecting both worlds. This idea is similar to a “Korban” what we often translate as “sacrifice” but is really better translated as “bringing closer”.
The best analogy here is likely marriage. Essentially the intention is that rather than “sacrifice” myself, I am committing myself to an idea and to someone who by doing so we “bring each other closer”, create an alignment and closeness like no other. Perhaps then, this most important point here is actually the commitment itself. Because in doing so we are giving over of oneself to a mission, a purpose, a destiny that connects the two worlds - reuniting the soul itself. Indeed we often grapple trying to understand the connection and priority between the relationships between ourselves, our spouse or loved ones and Gd. But ultimately when done right, they truly are all one in the same. The relationship, connecting to something beyond oneself, is the result of the commitment. The work of life becomes a path rather than an obstacle. Life expands beyond this world and we achieve transcendence.
Biblically, an intimate relationship is referred to as “Da’as”.“HaAdam yada es Chava ishto” (Adam knew Eve his wife)4. This is a very interesting concept that has endless depth. Spiritually, there are three components to the mind 1. Chochmah, 2. Binah and, 3. Da’as. The first, Chochmah being an idea, an ideal or a concept i.e. I want to act nicely to my neighbor. The second, Binah, is my internalized practical knowledge; I feel insecure and my friend triggers me. Finally Da’as is the practical reconciliation and resulting action of the two. In a perfect state, all three are perfectly aligned. When this happens, my actions are almost subconscious, as the knowledge is completely internalized already. This then is the intention of marriage, when Adam and Eve consciously choose to commit to each other. Here, for a moment their actions express the alignment of both their outer knowledge and inner understanding. From this point, the objective is to live to that promise, to build the alignment further, stretching ourselves, embracing the challenge - of identifying with our soul and truly achieving oneness.
But then there’s the other perspective - the other approach. I’d recently seen probably the least worst take on marriage ever by an ostensibly intelligent person which I will not quote so as not to embarrass him. He suggested that there should be an understanding before a couple gets married that if one were to find someone better than the other, that they end their marriage in the interest of an upgrade. He argues that it’s only fair and understandable that no one should be able to hold me back from getting the very best for myself. Here the active decision is not to commit. I have instead chosen myself in the most limited lowest sense. The decision to choose freedom is in effect the most limiting of all, leaving no room to push oneself to the limit, to discover the soul’s lofty abilities to supersede and ultimately achieve true success with accepted responsibility. This take, to me perfectly summarizes the current moment and mistake - everything about who Amalek is and who we are meant not to be.
It is humanity’s basest desire to want freedom, with no consequence and responsibility, all in the ultimate pursuit of oneself. The decision to live life by these values, by one's basest instincts and desires is the negative energy of Da’as. But it is exactly in this shirking of consequence and responsibility that we find anxiety and emptiness. We become an empty shell - threatened by everything and everyone, while endlessly limited in possibility. And so we turn angry, full of hatred and blame.
We learn that specifically on Purim did the Jewish people officially accept upon themselves the Torah “with love” (Kimu V’Kiblu HaYehudim5). The verbiage is quite interesting and specific though, focusing much more on the act of acceptance rather than the love. And perhaps that is exactly the point. A relationship of love cannot be forced, it must be accepted, but it is not about freedom or lack of responsibility, instead it is a choice to actively commit.
Adar, Maamer 3, Drush 1
Maamer 2, Drush 3
This is why 248 (Eivarim in this world) +248 (Eivarim in the next world) = 496 (Malchus - which is the intention of creation). Also Avraham (= 248) Avraham (=248) after the Mesiras Nefesh of the Akeidah refers to this concept of perfection.
Genesis 4:1
Esther 9:27