wipe out the remembrance of Amalek. ומפרש Rashi explains, what does that mean to wipe out the remembrance of Amalek? מאיש ועד אשה, from man to woman, מעולל ועד יונק, from a small child to a nursing child, משור ועד שה, from ox to sheep, שלא יהא שם עמלק נזכר, that Amalek's name should not be mentioned, אפילו על הבהמה, even on a בהמה. לומר, saying, בהמה זו משל עמלק היתה. You shouldn't even have a בהמה, any בהמה of Amalek should not be left alive, so no one should be able to point to say, \"Oh, this בהמה belongs to Amalek.\" That means Amalek's name is still remembered on something. So you got to erase everything. And actually, this is all from the לשון הפסוק, Rashi I mean in the bottom here it says, from Shmuel. The לשון הפסוק there it's מאיש עד אשה, מעולל ועד יונק, משור ועד שה, that, all the things. בהשקפה ראשונה, first glance, בא רש״י להשמיענו, Rashi comes to tell us, שמחיית זכר עמלק פירושה, that the peshat in wiping out the זכר of Amalek is לא רק הריגת בני אדם דעמלק, it's not only killing the people. You would think wipe out Amalek means wipe out, kill all the people from Amalek! So Rashi tells you, no, אלא גם מחיית הבהמה. It also means that you have to wipe out the בהמות of Amalek. ומוכרח הוא בפשוטו של מקרא, and this is a must in peshat, because we always know Rashi when he says a peshat different than you would imagine, it must, it must be a הכרח, there must be something in simple peshat that forces him.

Rashi doesn't do that because in the Gemara it says that way, and this thing, in Midrash it says it. Rashi, even when he quotes a Midrash or Gemara, it's all because that is, because of the peshat. So if Rashi says here that it means not only to kill the people, but it also means to kill the בהמות, there must be a הכרח, there must be something, he's forced to it from peshat. So the force is ומוכרח הוא בפשוטו של מקרא, it's מוכרח in פשט, דאי לאו הכי הרי נזכר שם עמלק, because if you don't wipe out the בהמות, then Amalek's name is still mentioned על הבהמה. So someone asks, \"Oh, where did this בהמה come from? From Amalek.\" And the Torah says wipe out Amalek, so wipe out the name of Amalek, so obviously, it means the בהמות also. How about his wealth and everything else like that? Well, the sicha will come to that. דהא בני אדם אינם זכר עמלק אלא עמלק עצמו. When the Torah says wipe out the זכר of Amalek, it doesn't mean the people. The people are Amalek himself! A person who belongs to the nation of Amalek is Amalek! The זכר of Amalek goes on things which are not the people, but they are the animals of Amalek. Vetzarich lehavin, the Rebbe says we have to understand, מה בכלל קושי בתיבות תמחה זכר עמלק שזקק רש״י לפרשם? What's bichlal shver, what's not understood in the words? Rashi bichlal has a klal: he does not say anything unless there is something in peshat of the pasuk that's not understood. Rashi doesn't just quote peshatim because the Gemara says so and the Midrash says so. They have a different derech. In דרך הפשט, there are so many pesukim that Rashi doesn't say anything, Rashi doesn't comment bichlal. In the Gemara, in the Midrashim, you have so many things on those pesukim, why doesn't Rashi say them? See, people think Rashi just took, you know, he chose from Midrashim, why did he choose these, not those? Because he only explains a pasuk that there is something lacking in the simple peshat. So the she'eilah is, what's lacking in the pasuk? The pasuk says clearly, wipe out the זכר of Amalek. ואם נאמר שרש״י בא, לא ללמד פירוש התיבות שבכתוב, אלא קושטא דמילתא איך תהיה מחיית זכר עמלק, but if we might say that Rashi here is not trying to explain the words, he's telling you the facts, he's trying to explain to you what does it mean to wipe out Amalek. Even though the words make sense, you could understand the words very simply, wipe out the זכר of Amalek, but he wants to explain the פשט, הוה ליה למימר, הוה ליה לפרש זאת לעיל בפרשת בשלח. If that's his purpose, he should have said it earlier. In Parshat Ki Tetze is not the first time Amalek is mentioned. Actually, the first time it's mentioned is Parshat Beshalach. שנאמר בו, there it says, אמחה זכר עמלק. Hashem says, \"I'm going to wipe out, erase the זכר of Amalek.\" So Rashi should have said there, what does that mean? To kill everybody, to kill all the animals. מדלא פירש רש״י כלום בפעם הראשונה, since the first time Rashi says nothing, מוכרח דהן פירוש התיבות הן איך מחיית זכר עמלק הוא מובן ופשוט גם לבן חמש למקרא. From that, we understand that the meaning of the words and the meaning of what you're supposed to do is very obvious. When something is very obvious, Rashi doesn't say. And it must be very obvious, because if it's not obvious, then Rashi would have said it the first time. And the lashon of the Rebbe, if we're familiar with the Rebbe's style, when he wants to say that something is obvious for anybody, he says that it's obvious even for a בן חמש למקרא, because Rashi, the Rebbe said many times, Rashi wrote his peirush for somebody who doesn't know anything, just Chumash. He's starting to, whatever he learned in Chumash, that's what he knows, nothing more. So a five-year-old, בן חמש למקרא, בן חמש is a five-year-old. So the Rebbe always would say that even when Rashi explains, because there's a question and answer, so Rashi would say, פרעגט דער בן חמש למקרא, so the בן חמש למקרא asks, and he answers like this.

Someone told you that there was once for Shavuot came, Shlomo, Shlomo was the principal of Beit Rivkah in France, yes. He wasn't a Lubavitcher, but he was a mechanech. So they once came for Shavuos l'farbrengen, so it was their Shabbos, Shavuos was, and he heard a farbrengen. And in the farbrengen there was a Rashi the Rebbe spoke, and the Rebbe kept on saying, fregt der ben chamesh lamikra, entfernt er. So after the farbrengen, he asked somebody, \"Who's the mechaber of the ספר בן חמש למקרא? Who wrote the ספר בן חמש למקרא?\" He didn't understand what the Rebbe was saying. He thought there's a a ספר, בן חמש למקרא asks the ספר asks this. Anyway, so the Rebbe says here too, obviously that this peshat pasuk, whether it's the words or the meaning how to do it is simple, for even for a בן חמש למקרא. אם כן למה ליה לרש״י לפאר לפארשה כאן? So why does Rashi say it here? And it's obvious, all Rashi wants to tell us it means to wipe out the animals, that's simple. Anybody with a little seichel will understand that, like he said before, because if you don't wipe out the animals, the זכר is still there, and also that that's called a זכר, so it's obvious that, so Rashi doesn't have to say it. אך יש לדייק בדברי רש״י, other questions in Rashi. Number one, דכיון שחידושו של רש״י כאן שמחיית זכר עמלק אפילו על בהמה, since the chidush of Rashi here is that to wipe out the זכר of עמלק even refers to the בהמות, למה מייתי מהכתוב בשמואל? In the case of גם מאיש ועד אשה מעולל ועד יונק. So why does Rashi quote from the פסוק in שמואל he says, what does that mean? From man to woman, from child to nursing child, from ox to sheep, from from the yeah, from משור ועד שה. Now, if the whole chidush of Rashi is to tell you it means the בהמות also, so he should have just quoted the end, from sheep from sheep, from ox to sheep. From from a man to a woman, that part, that's pashut, that's not even the chidush of Rashi. The whole chidush of Rashi is the animal, so that he doesn't have to say. Second question, למה לא הביא רש״י גם סיום הכתוב מגמל ועד חמור? If Rashi quotes already the pasuk from from Shmuel, he should have quoted the end of the pasuk also. There it says from camel to donkey. So why doesn't he say it here? מאחר שגם הם זכר עמלק, they're also part of the זכר of עמלק, ואינם בכלל משור ועד שה, they're not included from ox to sheep because they're not ox and sheep. How do we know they're not included? כדימוכח מסדר שמואל המפרטם בפני עצמם. Since in Shmuel he had to specify it, as a separate that's a separate category, so why doesn't Rashi say it here? What, in Shmuel what? In Shmuel it does mention it. It says ox, and camel, and donkey. מגמל ועד חמור, right. Shows that it's not included in the previous one, so why does Rashi not why does Rashi include it or Rashi not mention it? Third she'eilah. מאיש ועד so the whole pasuk, from a man to woman, from the child to יונק, the whole this till All that is קרא הוא. You know, it's a pasuk. וכל זה לא כתב רש״י כדרכו בכמה מקומות כשנאמר או כדכתיב. Rashi didn't write, \"As the pasuk says,\" like he does in many places. וכיוצא בזה, he said שנאמר, כדכתיב. Rashi should have said something. Rashi uses the he borrows the lashon from the pasuk in Shmuel and doesn't mention that it's a pasuk, which is strange. A lot of times, not all the time, a lot of time, most sichos are the קושיא שיחות the Rebbe, questions are so strong. When you learn the questions, you can't even think, \"How could they answer such kushyos?\" All these questions are makes you feel like that it's so strange in Rashi. When you come to the answer, and you see, I mean, sometimes the answer is so clear that it's like a puzzle, sometimes he tells a pshat, a good pshat, but sometimes you know. We'll see how it's here. ד', fourth kashya. אחר שמבאר רש״י שלא יהא שם של עמלק נזכר אפילו על בהמה, after Rashi writes, see the first word the the last words of Rashi, after he quoted this pasuk, from man to woman, etc., he adds the words that the name of Amalek should not be mentioned אפילו on a behemah. Rashi adds, what does that mean? Lomar, what does it mean not to have mentioned on a behemah? Not to be able to say, בהמה זו של עמלק היתה, this behemah was from עמלק. He adds these words. ולכאורה הוי כפל לשון, this double. If he says not to mention the name of a behemah on עמלק, what does that mean? Obviously, it means you shouldn't be able to say that's from עמלק. Why does Rashi have to translate explain it in detail? It's like repeating the same thing. Fifth קשיא, בריש פירושו מייתי רש״י גם התיבות תמחה את, in the beginning of the of when the Rebbe have a klal that Rashi not only is exact in every word that he writes, and it's exact in פשוטו של מקרא, not in Gemara not in, just in peshat, he's also exact which words he quotes from the pasuk. He only quotes those words from the pasuk that are noge'a to his peshat, or that are part of the question, or are part of the answer, but something. Rashi just doesn't quote. And this is one of the things that people, when the Rebbe came out with this derech of Rashi, they they couldn't they wouldn't care for it. \"Big deal, Rashi quotes a word here, whatever...\" But the Rebbe there's no such thing. Everything in Rashi is meduyak. So Rashi quotes the words, if you look back in the beginning of the sichah, he quotes what Rashi says, תמחה זכר עמלק. Rashi says, \"Erase the zecher of עמלק.\" So Rashi quotes the words also, \"You shall erase the.\" והרי לא נחת לפרש אלא מהו זכר עמלק, all that Rashi's telling us is what is זכר עמלק. In the Torah it says, \"Erase the zecher of עמלק.\" Rashi should have said, \"זכר עמלק means the behemot.\" And that's all. So he's explaining what זכר עמלק is. Why does he also quote from the פסוק the words תמחה את, \"You shall erase the\"? The זכר of עמלק. והביאור בזה. גברא ממש. והביאור בזה, the explanation is like this: דהסיבה דזה, the ציווי דתמחה זכר עמלק, כפשוטו של מקרא, the pasuk says, \"You shall erase the זכר of עמלק,\" so in simple peshat, and again we're not learning in mefarshim, we're not learning kabbalah, chassidut, we're learning peshat, the words as they are written in simple peshat, not understood. זכר עמלק פירושו הוא הזכרון של עמלק, זכר means the remembrance of Amalek. והציווי תמחה זכר עמלק, and the commandment to erase the זכר עמלק, הוא למחות זכרון של עמלק, to erase the זכר of עמלק, ממקום הזכרון, from the place where a person remembers.

Erase the remembrance of Amalek, so where should you erase it? From your brain! היינו ממחשבתו ולבו של אדם, from your head, from your machshavah, from your heart. ואינו מובן, not understood, איך שייך ציווי למחות זכר עמלק ממחשבתו? How could the aibershter command you should erase a זכר of עמלק from your mind? Is it possible to command a feeling or the heart? Can I tell you, it's like in court. You ever hear in you sit in court and someone, the lawyer says something and then the other guy objects and the judge says to the jury, \"Forget about it.\" \"Forget? Forget it! You can't forget, I remember it! No, I have to forget.\" Well, I take you erase it, you erase it. There's no such thing telling you you have to forget, that's why the lawyers do it. Even if they know that the guy is going to object it, dervayl hot er es arayngehakt! It's there already, so the guy remember whether they like it or not. Maybe officially, legally they can't use it, but it's there in their mind. So how could there be a mitzvah: erase the זכר of עמלק from your head? הוה ליה למימר זכר עמלק לא יהא על לבך, the remembrance of Amalek should not be on your heart, which would mean don't think about him. That makes sense, don't think about him. Don't bring him to, when you think about it, move your mind away. אל תשים על לבך, try to take the case of this, היינו שלא יחשוב על דבר עמלק ברצון, don't intentionally think about him. אבל אינו בעל הבית על מחשבתו שלא יפול במחשבתו זכר עמלק, you're not a baal habayit on your machshavah what will fall in. Telling me, \"Erase it\"? Al derech the famous she'eilah, maybe the Rebbe נ״ע brings it. Well, we'll see what it means. That's another problem: if you if you if you're going to think about it to erase it, you remember it. But, but the point of the she'eilah is how can it be. Al derech the

famous קשיא that the Maggid asks: How could there be a mitzvah of the אייבערשטער, ואהבת את ה׳ אלקיך? של אבא שלו? נישט של אבא שלו. Can't can't force me to love! If I love it, I love it. If I hate it, I hate it. If I What you mean you must love it? You could force me מחשבה, you can force me I could say it. Tell me I must say it, fine, I'll say it. You tell me think these words, I'll think these words, but to feel, you can't force. So that's what the Maggid answered: the mitzvah is not to love, the mitzvah is you should do things that will bring you to love. Think a lot about the אייבערשטער and try to know what he, remember what he did to you, and automatically it will bring you to love, but there can't be a mitzvah on loving! Like the Rambam says in last week's parashah, yeah, the Rambam says: the pasuk says don't be afraid, when you go to war don't be afraid. How could there be a mitzvah don't be afraid? I'm afraid! The Torah could say: even if you're afraid, nevertheless go. Okay, I'm a kabbalat ol, so I'll go. But how could there be a mitzvah don't be afraid? I'm afraid! So the Rambam says what it means is don't think about things that will bring you to fear. Says don't think about your wife and your children that you left, and will get you nervous, that's all. But you can't So here the Torah says: Erase the זכר! ועל דרך מאמר חז״ל, he says, על דרך that חז״ל say: ג׳ עבירות שאין אדם נצול מהן בכל יום, there are three things a person cannot save himself. And one of the things is הרהור עבירה. There's three things: עיון תפלה, אבק לשון הרע, הרהור עבירה, something that you can't A normal, average person, definitely כל דור does it: הרהור עבירה, because עבירות הרהור עבירה means about צניעות, these things, they fall into your mind. A בינוני it says, what does he do? The moment he realizes it is, he pushes it away, but not that he's in control. A צדיק is in control, but like this you're not in control. ואדרבה, now he says, the opposite: כשנזכר על הציווי זה, אז על הציווי זה, אז זה מזכיר את עמלק! Every time you, \"Oh, the אייבערשטער told me to erase Amalek,\" that itself, when I remember the ציווי, is I'm remembering Amalek! He says: בשלמא בפרשת בשלח, מילא in פרשת בשלח נאמר, there it says כי מחה אמחה את זכר עמלק, there Hashem says, \"I will erase Amalek,\" שהקדוש ברוך הוא ימחה זכרו של עמלק, השם will erase the זכר of עמלק, הקדוש ברוך הוא שהוא כל יכול, השם can do anything, מבטיח שימחה וישכח זכר עמלק ממחשבתם ולבם של בני אדם. Hashem says, \"I'm telling you I'm going to erase the זכר of Amalek from the people's heart.\" Yeah, that the Eibershter can do. The Eibershter wants, can make us forget. אבל פרשתנו, שהציווי הוא על בני ישראל, our parsha doesn't say the Eibershter will erase, it says the Eibershter telling the Yidden, \"You shall erase.\" תמחה את זכר, you erase! תקשה, and now the she'eilah is: איך יוכל אדם למחות זכרון שבמחש שבמחשבתו ושבמחשבת ושבמחשבות של כל בני אדם אשר תחת השמים? How could you erase what you have, what you're going to think, and what other people are going to think? It's not possible to say I'm going to I'm going to erase it! וזה בא רש״י לפרש ולהורות, so that's what Rashi comes to answer. That's why Rashi trying to explain what does it mean to erase זכר עמלק. He's trying to explain what the pasuk means, because the פסוק פשוט makes no sense, so you must erase the זכר. The pasuk means הציווי הוא לא על מחיית זכר עמלק ממחשבת אדם. It's not like we thought that the Torah means you should erase the זכרון of Amalek from your mind. You shouldn't remember it or your heart. כי אם למחות כל הדברים המזכירים שמו של עמלק, erase those things that will remind you of Amalek.

משור ועד שה, from an ox to a sheep, שלא יהיה שם עמלק נזכר אפילו על הבהמה, that the name of Amalek should not be mentioned even on a בהמה, לאמר, to say, בהמה זו של עמלק היתה, this בהמה was Amalek's, שעל ידי זה, ובדרך ממילא, ישכח, if you do that, that you erase every all these things that belong to Amalek you're going to erase, ישכח סוף סוף זכרון עמלק ממחשבתו ולבו של אדם. And then that's what it will be. That the end will be, if you don't have things that will remind you, so you don't think about it too often, because nothing is there to bring it back to your mind, so what's going to be the end? You'll forget it. Every day it is. Huh? Well, that's a different story. We're going to see that. It says that exactly, the word in Hebrew is זכר, but it's exactly what it means. Like when he says זכר in the beginning, I didn't really understand the question, because זכר means, it doesn't mean זכרון, it means the remaining, it means like something left over. Right, that's how it's used because of this because of the Rashi because of Right, but normally we say זכר means to remember. The word זכרון, והיה לזכרון, to remember. So don't remember What does it say, erase the rememberer, don't remember. Makes no sense. And also the peshat should remain memory. Right, because that's the peshat of the sugya. Which is similar to what the Maggid answers on the kushya of ואהבת, that the Torah doesn't say you should love, the Torah means you should do the same thing. The Torah doesn't say אל תירא, don't be afraid. Don't do things that Get rid of the things that will make you afraid. Get rid of the things of Amalek. על פי הנ\"ל, now that we've said that רש\"י נוחת לפרש תיבת וענין זכר, that Rashi is trying to explain the word זכר, זכר עמלק, what does the word זכר mean? דהיינו תוכן הציווי על מחיית הזכרון, that it means how how do you how do you erase it from your זכרון? By erasing it from the בהמות, ולא רק להשמיענו פרט נוסף בזכר עמלק, שזה כולל בהמה, not like we said in the beginning that Rashi is coming to tell us just that what does it mean to erase, not only the people, Rashi is adding it also means a בהמה, כפי דמשמע לכאורה מכללות לשון רש\"י, like it seems from the lashon of Rashi that he's telling us what it means. But now we're saying not that he's trying to tell us how far you go, but he's trying to explain what the word זכרון here means. מובן מה שכתב גם תחילת הכתוב, מאיש ועד אשה וכו'. And now we understand, this answers this she'eilah, we ask why does Rashi also mention the beginning of the pasuk, from man to woman? According to the first peshat that we thought in the beginning of the שיחה, that the main chiddush of Rashi is that it also includes בהמות, the fact that it includes people is obvious, Rashi is telling you it includes בהמות, then why does Rashi quote from the פסוק מאיש

ועד אשה? That that's not a chiddush of Rashi, but now we understand. Why? He explains like this: במלחמת מדין, שבו נצטוו לנקום נקמת בני ישראל מאת המדינים, in the milchama against Midyan when Hashem said, \"Go and take revenge in the Midyanim who got you to do the aveirot,\" נאמר בו, it says like this: כל הטף בנשים החיו לכם, all the children, the women children, the female children, says you should kill all the the older women, and the children, female, you shall let live. גם בנוגע לאשה שבזה נאמר וכל אשה הרוגו, that was even those women where it says all the women you shall kill, what happened is they came back and they let all the women live. So Moshe Rabbeinu was upset, and he said, \"These are the women that caused the trouble, now you're going to keep them? Therefore, go kill all the women, all those except the טף you should leave.\" Okay, הרי מפורש הטעם, and it says why should you kill the women, כי הן הנה היו לבני ישראל למסור מעל, they were the ones that caused the מעל, that caused the trouble, ותהי המגפה בעדת השם, and that caused the plague, שבסיבתם היתה המגפה, because of them, Yidden died. דמשמע מזה, it comes out, דלולי זה, that if not for this reason, that because they are the cause of the trouble, היו גם הנשים בכלל החיו לכם, they would also, all the women would have been alive. כמו הטף בנשים, like the children. אף שהציווי לנקום ולהרג את המדינים, even though the Aibershter said, \"Go kill the Midianites,\" if it said go kill the Midianites, what would you assume? The women too. The reason Moshe was upset that they didn't kill them is not because Moshe didn't say, \"Why didn't you kill them, didn't I tell you to kill everybody?\" Moshe didn't say that. He said, \"Why did you not kill them when they were the causes of the trouble?\" And therefore, the little kids were not causes of the trouble, so okay that you left them. It's משמע that even though Moshe said, Aibershter said, \"Kill all kill the Midianites,\" which includes them all, the women are not included. Why? So, obviously, the woman is not problem. When you say, \"Kill everybody,\" it doesn't mean a woman. על דרך זה, היה מקום לומר גם במלחמת ומחיית עמלק, so I could say this, I would have thought to say the same thing when it comes to wipe out עמלק, שגם כאן היתה על דרך נקמת נקם נקמת בני ישראל, which is also similar to the same like here. Why by Midian did he say, \"Go kill Midianites\"? Take revenge on what they did to us. Why did the Aibershter say go to wipe out Amalek? For the same reason. Cause what they did to us, when we went out of Mitzrayim, they started up with us. וכפי שמקדים בפרשתנו like it says in the beginning of the in the parashah in this week's parashah, before he says wipe out Amalek it says why, אשר זכור אשר עשה לך עמלק, remember what Amalek did to you, אשר קרך, they got to you, they got they made you cold, they got you. וזנב בך, all the trouble they did to you, ולכן תמחה את זכר עמלק, so you should erase them. Mimela, it seems like there's a parallel between Amalek, killing Amalekim, Amalek, to killing the Midianites. והייתי סובר לומר, so I would think to say, שחייבים למחות להרוג את האנשים. If the whole idea is killing the people, killing Amalek, just like by Midian to kill the Midianites. So here too to kill Amalek, the men. Right, right, right, right. Yeah. אבל הנשים והטף אחיה לכם, but I would say that the men the women and the children, you could leave. And there's no problem, איי the Eibershter said erase Amalek, means kill the men like by Midian. לכן מבאר רש\"י ומביא את תחילת הפסוק, that's what Rashi explains it by bringing the beginning of the pasuk. That what? שהציווי כאן הוא למחות זכר עמלק. Here it's not like over there. By Midian, it doesn't say erase the זכר of the Midianites. There it says kill the Midianites. Here it says the word זכר, וזה כולל מאיש ועד אשה, ממילא, ועונק. That already concludes men and women, that includes young children and even nursing children, because here it's a different vort. But did Rashi have to say it? Of Shmuel. No, yeah, that's why he brings the beginning of שמואל, מאיש ועד אשה. So this is all connected to the Rebbe's pshat. If not for the Rebbe's pshat, the pshat in Rashi would be that Rashi is just coming to add something you wouldn't know. You knew that you kill you kill the people, Rashi is adding you also kill the behemah. Then to mention the men to mention the I mean the the the the women and the children there's no reason for Rashi. Now we're saying that the whole thing is based on Rashi is trying to explain not who to do it to, but what is the פשט זכר? If what is the פשט זכר, so Rashi is adding, I'm telling you what the פשט זכר is. זכר means to erase, kill those things which will remind you, so you want to know therefore it also means the women. Cause we're not just saying take the to kill, take away the זכר. אולם סיום הכתוב, but the end of the pasuk, where the kashya was why doesn't he bring the end, מחרב מגמל ועד חמור, from camel to donkey, אין צריך להביא, he doesn't have to bring it. כי מובן מאליו, it's understood by itself. דכיוון שהציווי להרוג משה ועד שור כמפורש מפורש מפורש רש\"י הטעם, since the reason to kill even an ox and a sheep, so Rashi gives the reason, לא מפני דכתיב בשמואל, רש\"י doesn't quote it as a pasuk, it doesn't say like it says in the פסוק, אלא מפני שכאן נאמר זכר, the whole reason of Rashi is because of the word זכר, ולכך צריך לומר שלא יהא שם עמלק נזכר אפילו על הבהמה, so it comes to teach us that even a בהמה shouldn't have, anything that remembers עמלק shouldn't have, פשוט שכל בעלי חיים בכלל זה, so every all בעלי חיים. He's fucking not referencing! That's the answer to the שאלה, why he doesn't say כי דכתיב, וכן כתוב. He's using the term, he's borrowing the לשון there, but he's not saying because it says there, I'm quoting what it says there. I'm saying what is the פשט in this פסוק. The פשט is you have to get rid of the זכר, ממילא it includes the בהמה, it includes the men also, I mean the women also, children also, and בהמות also. And he uses the לשון from שמואל, משה עד שור, he doesn't have to go into every בהמה and גמל and חמור. Huh? And chickens, yeah, yeah. אך עדיין אינו מובן If it says איש ואשה, Yeah, I would think maybe טף is not, right, right, right. Cuz he cuz he is borrowing the לשון of the פסוק of שמואל, that's for sure, he's borrowing the לשון. But he's not borrowing, but he's not limited to it. But he is trying to use that לשון. Chickens is included. Yeah. Yeah, בהמה doesn't mean here בהמה versus חיה. Means means yeah, it means it means means חיה. Here's No, non-human animal. I know בהמה sometimes means חיה and yeah, but here it doesn't mean that. Look, בהמה means animal. When you say when we say animal, we don't mean that's pure and It's a שם כללי, yeah. No it is! Right, כללי it is, with פרטי, if he tightshes, the חיה בהמה וחיה, then you know. בהמה ועוף, but בהמה בכלל, is it מיד a בהמה? אך עדיין אינו מובן, but it's still not understood, לפי פירוש רש\"י שהטעם הוא לפי ששם עמלק נזכר אפילו, since רש\"י we just said the reason is because the name of עמלק shouldn't be mentioned on anything, קשה, here's the קשיא that someone asked before, הרי אין פיקוח שמו של עמלק רק על בעלי חיים, the name of עמלק is not only on animals, אלא גם על נכסים אחרים, other kinds of possessions, like you asked before, כגון בתים ושדות וכרמים houses and fields and vineyards, אפילו מטלטלין, even movable objects. ולמה כתב רש\"י רק דנצטוו למחות בהמה? So why did Rashi mention דוקא that you have to destroy the בהמה? ולא היה ציווי להשמיד כל נכסיהם? And there was no command to destroy all their possessions, שלא יהא שם עמלק נזכר גם על הדומם? That even on a דומם, something that's not movable, on a table, on a chair, it's עמלק's chair, why is not? לכן מסיים רש\"י, that's why Rashi adds at the end, לומר בהמה זו משל עמלק היתה, because the Eibershter wants you to erase that people shouldn't be able to say this בהמה was עמלק's. ובזה מתורצת קושיתנו, that's how Rashi answers that קושיא, why? מחיית עמלק צריכה להיות בדברים המעוררים אזכורנה על ידי שיאמרו עליהם, when we say to erase עמלק it means to erase the possibility of people saying זו משל עמלק היתה, they shouldn't be able to say this is עמלק's. וזה שייך רק בבעלי חיים ולא בנכסים אחרים. This is only שייך by בהמות, by other possessions people don't do it. Why not? והביאור בזה. Oh, we know already the Rebbe's style. First he tells the nekudah, a lot of most sichos are like it, he tells you the answer, doesn't explain it yet, and now he's going to explain why. Someone might say that's עמלק's cow. What? No, fine, that's what he's going to say. והביאור בזה, the explanation is like this: בבהמה, ובכלל כל הבעלי חיים, by בהמה and all living animals, אי אפשר לעשות בה שינוי גמור שלא יהא ניכר כלל מציאותה הקודמת, you cannot really make a change in it that the original מציאות should change. אין שינוי שאינו חוזר לברייתו, a change that you cannot change back. I mean, what can you do to an animal to change it? ובפרט שאסור לצער בעלי חיים, you can't just take a בהמה and you'll turn its feet around and make it look different completely, you can't, it's צער. Huh? Like a ברית? And that's not צער בעלי חיים? ואם כן אי אפשר לעשות בה שינוי ע\"י מעשה ידיו, you can't make any change that will be מצער. In other words, if you want to get rid of being able to say that this is עמלק's, maybe you could make it look different, if you'll make it look different so now people won't see it from Amalek. By a בעל חי you can't do that. ומזה מובן, from that we understand, שגם כאשר תצא הבהמה לרשות בעלים חדשים, that even if the בהמה goes to another person, becomes somebody else's, מאחר שאין שייך בה שינוי גמור, since there's no real change, נשאר עליה הרושם של בעליה הראשונים, so the רושם, the trace of the earlier previous owners is still there. ובטבע האדם, it's the nature of a person, להיזכר על ידה שמו של בעליה הקודמים, that you would always remind yourself when you see a בהמה that used to belong and it looks the same, so naturally you say oh this בהמה I know it came from this and this farm, it came from this and this guy, even though now the guy doesn't own it. Same thing here. ולכן בהמת עמלק, a בהמה of עמלק, גם כשתעבור לרשות ישראל, even when it'll go to the רשות of a איד, מכיון שלא נשתנה שינוי גמור ממציאותה הקודמת, it won't change a real change, at least a שינוי גמור, it can change a little bit, but you can't a real change from the way it was before, יאמרו עליה, they will still say, זו של עמלק היתה, this was from Amalek. הרי יונצח שמו של עמלק, ממילא as long as you let him live, and you don't destroy it, the name of Amalek will still be there. מה שאין כן בנכסים אחרים, by other נכסים, אין הכרח למחותם. In order to destroy the name of Amalek, the zecher of Amalek, you don't have to destroy it. Dai, it's enough, and according to the pshat that's what you should do, שינוי באופן שלא יזכירו עליהם נכסים של עמלק. All you have to do, change it! If you have a house, paint it or change something, add to it, paint I don't know, but add to it, make a change. Huh? Put a mezuzah? Now people could see it. I said paint it, I didn't say repaint. I'm saying knock down a, put add a second floor. So then people In other words, you make the whole tziur change. Somebody's going to still say this is an Amalek house. Someone might say, but this is not the natural. The nature is, it's a new thing, it's like a it's a שינוי שאינו חוזר לברייתו. Can't you take a kasher animal and shachat it and eat it? No. You're not allowed to, it's אסור בהנאה. All the בהמות. Yeah. You can take a בהמה, say, all look alike, a cow looks like the next cow. How do you say it's an Amalek's cow? They branded them. No, people who know that you bought you got this herd, where did this come from? I bought this from this farm, and people could tell. They were in the business back then, you mean? ואולי יש לומר בדברים אלו, and it's possible to say that these things, מאחר שאינם מוכרחים שישארו לעולם במציאותם הקודמת, and it's possible by these things, since they don't have to be lechatchilah they don't have to remain the way they were before, cuz you could change them, הנה על ידי שינוי הרשות, when you change the רשות, שהוכנסו לרשות אחרת, if it goes into another רשות, והאפשרות לשנותם, the fact that you're able to change it, אין בטבע האדם לומר עליהם אחר כך זו של עמלק היתה, people don't naturally this used to be his. Cuz since it's something that's be'etzem changeable, so as it is by you, now that's people look at this, it's yours. And if you mamash change it, vadai u'vadai. But even if you don't change it mamash, the nature is that something that could be so how lechatchilah, you forget whose it was before. נכסים אחרים, דבר דומם. You can domesticate an animal. Huh? You can domesticate an animal. A cow for meat going to change to a dairy cow, possibly? Yeah, yeah, but still looks the same. So by that he says, by a נכסים אחרים דבר דומם, by other things which is a דומם, אפילו אם הם חשובים, even if they're חשוב, כן, אבנים טובות ומרגליות, like the diamonds or jewels, מחמת שיכולים לשנותם, here, since you could change them, אין מציאותם קיימת עד כדי כך, it's not stay it doesn't stay so much שיקרא עליהם שם הבעלים הראשונים לעולם, that they should be since same thing with here, the house or anything else that you could change. And you say diamonds and jewels? That's also. Oh. Since you're able to change it, so then even when it's not changed, it's something I'm not going to say, \"You see? A diamond or a jewel,\" usually people don't say, \"It used to belong to this guy,\" right? What if it's the Hope Diamond? Yeah, but it's okay, that's if it's a special diamond, I mean it's always... No, but bederech klal most of the things that you have, the average people have, these are the thing. The Rebbe says, since you could change it, it doesn't really keep the name, and something that cannot be changed, that's where the name is kept. And now a physical object as opposed to an animal looks different and when you look at it. Yes, yeah. וזהו שמוסיף Rashi, that's why this adds this adds that answers why Rashi adds the words at the end, לומר בהמה זו משל עמלק היתה. Rashi said that you have to kill so the name of Amalek shouldn't even be on a בהמה, and Rashi adds, to say that this is from Amalek, this came from Amalek. Why does Rashi add these words? שאז יובן, that explains, למה לא נצטוו למחות כל נכסי עמלק, why weren't they told to destroy all the possessions of Amalek מלבד הבהמות ובעלי חיים, except the בהמות? כי דווקא להם הוא שייך זכרון עמלק, only on her, on the בהמה is שייך זכרון עמלק, ורק במחיותם ימחה שמו של עמלק, only when you destroy the בהמה, all the בהמות of Amalek, then the name of Amalek will be. וההכרח גם בפשוטו של מקרא כנ\"ל עש\"ה שלא כל נכסי עמלק מאבדים. Now, what's da'aka the re'ayah? Maybe Where does Rashi take this from? Maybe Rashi maybe the פסוק דאקא means all the possessions? See, the פסוק doesn't mention בהמות, the פסוק says erase the name of זכר of Amalek. So Rashi understands it means that you shouldn't have the name called on it. And now Rashi says, \"But other things seems from Rashi you could,\" and we need a peshat why. Lechatchilah, Rashi could have learned that it means everything. The hechreach Rashi has is, שאם כן הוי ליה למימר כולו לשון חרם. If it means everything, it should say יחרים, כי זה על דרך מה שכתוב לעיל בעיר הנדחת, בעיר הנדחת when it says you should destroy everything, it says the word cherem. Cherem means completely. Since it doesn't say cherem, it just says זכר destroy, a siman it's not everything. So it's not everything, Rashi started thinking peshat. What's the peshat? So there must be some things yes, some things not. So Rashi used his logic. This simple What פשוטו של מקרא? פשוטו של מקרא is logic. You take the words and you use your logic. So logic is there's this, there's for an animal, it means a בהמה also, and not other things. על פי הנ\"ל בשיטת רש\"י בפשוטו של מקרא יתורץ, based on what we learned in Rashi, peshat in Rashi, פשוטו של מקרא, we'll answer what's written in Megillat Esther and this is a famous kashya. It says in the מגילה, הנה בית המן נתתי לאסתר. Ahasuerus said, \"I gave the house of Haman to Esther.\" לכאורה, מכיון שהמן היה מזרע עמלק, since Haman was of the people of Amalek, Haman היה אגגי, it came from Agag, which is Amalek, הרי היה חוב עליו למחות את זכרו, don't you have to destroy his zecher? ואיך קיבלה אסתר את ביתו? How did Esther take the house of Amalek? לפי שיטה הנ\"ל ניחא, but based on what we explained before, it's understood. לא היה בזה איסור, this had no איסור, כי זה שנקרא שמו של המן על הבית, the fact that Haman's name was still called on the house, like Ahasuerus said, הנה בית המן נתתי לאסתר, \"I gave Haman's house to Esther\", היה רק בעת הנתינה, when he gave it, it was still Haman's house. So he says, \"This house, which is Haman's house, I'm giving to Esther.\" אבל כשנכנס לרשותה של אסתר, but after it came into the reshut of Esther, לא נקרא עוד בית המן, here the name בית המן wasn't there. ולא יאמרו על הבית זה של המן היה. And people didn't say, \"This house was Haman's.\" Again, it makes sense. The king killed Haman, why, forget about Haman! וכל שכן קל וחומר, קל וחומר, עצם הציווי זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק לא תשכח מזכיר את עמלק, so the Torah says, \"Remember what Amalek did to you,\" reminds you of Amalek, ובכל זאת אין בזה סתירה לפשוטו של מקרא כנ\"ל, but it's no סתירה, בפשוטו של מקרא כנ\"ל. Likhora, the Eibershter said erase the zecher, here you're saying, \"Remember what Amalek did.\" כי כאשר יזכר וימחה, זה הדרך שסוף כל סוף ישכח זכר עמלק לגמרי, because that's the seder. First, you when you remember him and then you remember to destroy, so eventually you will forget completely. Like we said before, the whole thing is eventually to forget. So the same thing here with the house of Haman, when you're saying that this house of Haman and Haman was a bad guy, and remember all the things that Haman did, and this and he gave and took away and the king took away his house, that itself will make you forget that this is the house of Haman. And you see the he'arah here, if I remember correctly, he brings what's the reason for for the greggers. Because in here. Yeah, in he'arah 23, יש להביא סמוכים לזה, there's a Midrash that says על מחה תמחה you should erase it even from תהא על העצים. And this is the shoresh for the minhag see the whole greggers started. It used to be like this: they used to take a piece of wood and write the word Amalek on it, and then they used to bang in order for the word to get erased, mekayem the mitzvah of מחיית עמלק. I guess from then came נשתלשל, so when you bang, the noise, so people think, you know, you make noise, anyway that. But this whole idea, to write in order to erase, what's the kavanah? That by doing that, you're mekayem the mitzvah. But now I'm coming to this, this sof sof bring you, but it's not so pashut. The Rebbe will continue. Let's see. To remember to erase. I heard from somebody it says some, I don't know who, one of the... it's a segulah, when you buy a pen and you want to try out if it works, so what they used to do is every time you tried, you used to write the word Amalek and erase, cross it out and to be mekayem the mitzvah of מחה תמחה את זכר עמלק. על אחת כמה וכמה בנתינת בית של המן, so certainly when he gave the house to Haman, that itself took away that people stopped, it's he said I, he takes away from Haman, so that it's not called anymore. So according to Rashi, and this is פשוטו של מקרא, doesn't mean in halachah it's like that. In פשוטו של מקרא you do not have to destroy all the things that belong to Amalek. You have to change it, or things which are able to be changed. In halachah, could be it's not like that. Now, the next סעיף you will see it's written so בקיצור, and if you read look at the last page that I made here, that's the Rebbe's כתב יד. The Rebbe wrote this whole סעיף, the whole סעיף ו'. Word? Yeah, this word for word. No, just you can copy, you could compare it. Look at the end, look at the back there. Not for now to tell you the Rebbe's system of writing. He

would write a word, and if he would want to add a word later, he would put it on the bottom, and then later when the next line was written, it would go around the left, around the circle, whatever. Go home and try to compare it and see, figure out what he wrote, it'll take a long time. Editors marks? Oh, these are not marks, but this is the way anyway, yes. And the הערות on the bottom, this is the whole So the Rebbe says here: והנה לאחר כל זה תמוה, after everything said and done, it's still not clear. איך אפשר למחות זרעו של עמלק, how could you destroy the, זכרו של עמלק, the זכר of עמלק, והרי יש מה שאירע לעמלק, what happened to עמלק, וכמה פרשיות בתורה, many פרשיות in the תורה, ואדרבה, נצטוינו, we were commanded, רק השמר לך פן תשכח ופן יסורו מלבבך, it says you're not allowed to forget any פסוק of the תורה. That means you're not allowed to forget what happened to עמלק. So you have to remember עמלק. וכן כאן על ציווי דפרשתנו הוא, in our פרשה it says, כלשון הכתוב זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק, you remember עמלק. על כרחך צריך לומר גם בפשוטו של מקרא, you must say even in simple pshat, in פשוטו של מקרא, not only in halachah, in halachah we find lomdut, that if you do something for the purpose, in halacha you could say even though I'm remembering, but if I'm doing it for the purpose of erasing, it's called the remembrance is called erasing, that's lomdus. No, that's already So he says, no, you must say even פשוטו של מקרא, דאסורה זכירת עמלק לשם זכירה, what the Torah forbade was to remember Amalek for the purpose of remembering, ומחוייבת זכירת עמלק לשם מחיית זכרו, you must remember Amalek in order to erase him. ולא עוד אלא שלכתחילה מנהגם, so לכתחילה מנהג לכתוב שמו על עצים ואבנים, to write the the name of Amalek on stones and on on wood, בשביל למחותו על ידי הכאה, knock, to erase him through knocking, שהרי אי אפשר לו לקיים מצות תמחה זכר עמלק בלא שיכתוב תחילה. You can't erase Amalek if you don't write it first! You can't erase something if you don't write it, so you gotta write it first. Mimela it comes out that even in פשוטו של מקרא, remembering for the purpose of erasing is is called erasing. Be'emet in halacha it's definitely like that. קריעה על מנת לתפור.

There's one of the מלאכות of of Shabbos, one of ל\"ט מלאכות, is to tear. But the Gemara asks: tearing, it's mekalkel. By tearing, you're ruining, and when you ruin something it's not you're not over on a melacha. So what did the Gemara say? You're only over on קריעה if it's על מנת לתפור. What? על מנת to when to sew it. For example, if something is torn, you want to sew it, so you gotta sometimes make the tear bigger to sew. So because you're על מנת to to sew it, it's called metaken. Ai mekalkel? This is called tikun. So you find the same thing in other things, too. Yeah, that's the Rebbe brings this. So מקלקל על מנת לתקן is called tikun. So here also, to remember על מנת למחות is called למחות. But the chiddush the Rebbe is saying, and that's the chiddush, that even in פשוטו של מקרא you must say that. פשוטו של מקרא, what does it mean? Logic, that logically, it's not a lomdus from from R'' Chaim, it's logical sechel. פשוט of of the way simple seichel goes of a child, בן חמש למקרא, who has a good head, like the Rabbi said Rashi is איש ישר, a gleyche kop will come to understand this. ולהעיר, יש, על פי זה צריך עיון, oh, now that based on this, we have a שאלה, the Rabbi has a few שאלות he doesn't answer, a few he gives us like homework, look into this. Tzarich iyun, we have to look into, we

have הגונב מן העני על מנת לשלם תשלומי כפל, to steal from a poor man, because when you steal, you have to pay double. You want to give the guy tzedakah, so you steal him על מנת to pay, כי יודע שלא יקבל באופן אחר, and you know that he will not take it in any other way. is a guy who, a poor man is, he's proud, he doesn't want to take. So you steal from him על מנת to give him back, so lichorah it's not called stealing. And the Gemara says you're not allowed. The Gemara says clearly, says לא ליגנב ולא ליגזל אפילו על מנת לשלם תשלומי כפל. You're not allowed. But the שאילתא asks, why? הקונה חמץ בפסח על מנת לקיים תשביתו, you want to fulfill the mitzvah of destroying chametz, you can't destroy if you don't have, so you buy chametz on Pesach to destroy it. Maybe that's not called buying? So you're not עובר על בל יראה? עשה עבודה זרה על מנת לקיים אבד תאבדום, you're not allowed to make an avodah zarah, but it says in the Torah you should destroy avodah zarah. You want to have a kind of mitzvah of destroying, so you'll make an avodah zarah. Are you allowed to do this? ואין כאן מקומו, this is not the place to discuss it, the Rabbi says. So if you look back now at the כתב, you'll see all the הערות on the bottom. Look at look at the הערה here, הערה 23, 25. See, the Rabbi starts: לכאורה מצינו כהאי גוונא. So the הערה, if you look over there, here he printed as number one: לכאורה מצינו כהאי גוונא, עבודה זרה כתוּבה בתורה, this whole thing. Anyway, I made it smaller, I couldn't make it the same size. Okay, right there. Ah? I can't read this anyway. You can't read it? I'll read it for you, two seconds. Open it up, I'll just try to go through it. First of all, now you could read it because you could compare word for word. I'm trying to look, but I can't even read the letters. No, look look at here. First thing is ו'. Where is the ו'? ו', ו' על ו'. That's why here it's printed ו' על ו', you see? והנה לאחר כל זה תמוה. See that's a ת' there. He made out of a... What it looks like he did? You want to know what he did here? See that ת'? No. After כל זה. Mine looks like a 'y'. He weißt du, which I can't say for sure, he started writing עדיין תמוה. He was going to write, looks like he was going to write 'still', ay, he wrote an ע' and then he changed ע' to a ת' and made it תמוה. איך אפשר למחות, and the

word למחות is underlined, so if you look here, the word למחות is italics, because whatever whenever he underlined a word, it was italics. איך אפשר למחות זכרו של עמלק, והרי מה שאירע לעמלק בכמה פרשיות בתורה. Now, when you see this, you could see what he wrote and what he crossed out. What he wrote himself and crossed out. That itself you could learn. You could learn from the word that he wrote and then he changed it. He started saying, הרי הסיפור על דרך זה הוא חלק... הסיפור על, and he changed it to מה שאירע לעמלק בכמה פרשיות בתורה. You can see other places also, he wrote a word and crossed it out. Anyways. You're saying this this story is is a part of the Torah. Yeah, he's saying the same thing, but the way he wanted to express himself was different. Okay, now let's go weiter. וענינו של תורה שבכתב, ומה חסידות, what's Chassidus? ומבואר בחסידות, it says in Chassidus that קליפת עמלק בעבודה, בעבודה, what's the kelipah of Amalek? ענין הקרירות, kaltkeit. אשר קרך בדרך, makes cold שמקרר את האדם, makes the person cold שלא להתפעל מאלקות, that he shouldn't get mitpael from from from Elokus. Actually, the Midrash gives a says a mashal on on עמלק, בנוגע אמבטיה, it was a burning a a very hot tub of hot water, everyone was afraid to go in. One guy jumps in. Now, the fact that he jumped in, he got burnt, but in the meantime, he cooled it off in front of everybody else, you know, the first guy goes and the other guys didn't, cooled it off. So the same thing, he cooled off Yiddishkeit by the Yidden. שמקרר שלא יתפעל, not to get mitpael from Elokus. ומחיית זכר עמלק, so what's the pshat you have to erase the זכר? Avodah d'kabbalat ol. The opposite! To be cold to Yiddishkeit, you have to be excited in Yiddishkeit, that's kabbalat ol. Kabbalat ol is excitement? What? I mean, you don't usually think of exciting... No, not the word exciting, but Elokus should be clear by you. It's not the word not to get excited, the word is not excitement. Even though it's karirus, that means you don't care about Elokus, that's what it is. You don't care so much. What does it mean cooled off from Elokus? You don't care about so much Elokus. What's the opposite? You care a lot about Elokus. You're You're Kabbalat ol means you give yourself over completely to Elokus. והדבר זה מרומז בפירוש רש\"י. So that's מרומז in Rashi: עמלק וראשית גוים עמלק, which is the beginning of all the nations of all the ז' אומות, all the ז' מידות, וראשית גוים עמלק, יכול ליפול ביד כביכול זה לעומת זה. To get rid of עמלק and him being the the the beginning of all the bad מידות, you could cause to get rid of him through the opposite: בשבע מידות דנפש אלקית ובכל נפש הבהמית. You have to, since he is the beginning of all the מידות, so you have to get rid of him by all the מידות being good, even the מידות even of נפש הבהמית also, that's what בכל לבבך calls, בשני יצריך. How is it the beginning of all the מידות? Because yeah, karirus could affect all the מידות. Not a specific מידה. All the ז' אומות, each one is this is a מידה, this this that מידה, מה שאין כן עמלק, ראשית גוים עמלק. When you cool off, but you don't care about Elokus, everything goes down the drain. אך אין השם שלם, it says the Eibershter's name is not complete. ס'רק יו״ד ה״א. Only יו״ד ה״א, ולא וא״ו ה״א. The וא״ו ה״א is not there, that means the ז' מידות דלעילא. וא״ו ה״א is the וא״ו is the six מידות and ה״א is מלכות, that's not there. And אין הכסא שלם, it says the chairs are not complete, it's כס. It says כס without an אלף, בלא אלף. What does it mean without an אלף by עמלק? אין אלופו של עולם נגלה בהעלם וכיסוי דהעולם. כס is kisui. Kisui means cover. The world is covered, and he doesn't allow the אלף, the aibershter to be revealed in the covering, in the concealment.

אף דהשמים כסאי והארץ הדום רגלי, even though be'emet the שמים is the aibershter's chair and the earth is the aibershter's footstool, שרפרף. What does Amalek do? Try to stop it, you should not recognize the aibershter in the chair, which really means that he does not to recognize not to recognize the aibershter in the העלם. כיסא it's With the אלף, it's a לשון of a chair or לשון of cover? No, כיסא means a chair. When it says אין הכסא שלם, it means the chair is not complete, written כ-ס. So the Rebbe daytsh, what does כס mean? כס is kisui. כס is לכסות, is to cover. כס, כסא with an אלף really means that in the covering you have the אלף, you have the aibershter. And you, by Amalek it's not שלם, it's missing the אלף. It's missing the וא״ו ה״א, that in the seven מידות you're missing the אלקות, and you're missing the אלף in the העלם of the world. ובאדם, הרי זה איש והמקבל אשה, דאיקרי כן שם המידות. And by an אדם, we have like this, you have איש and אשה, those are the two halves. And why is it called, and איש and the מקבל? דאיקרי כן שם המידות, the איש and the אשה, the איש is the the first מידות and then you have the מקבל. וכשם בקטנות, and when איש and אשה are are small, it's עולל ויונק. ובנפש אלוקית שלי, משור ועד שה. Now, could be נפש הבהמית, it says נפש אלוקית. I think, I didn't do it now, that I checked up the original, and it says אלוקית. Cuz it happened a few times I checked up the original and it said wrong, this was wrong, a mistake, a typing mistake. But here I think it says, so I don't understand, but could, it should mean a נפש הבהמית, is משור ועד שה בתקפו. So שור and a שה, both are נפש הבהמית, both בהמות. But you have a strong בהמה, an ox is strong and a שה, a sheep is calm. Whether it's בתקפו or בחלישות, בקטנות. So you have the person being בקטנות, and the שור and נפש הבהמית. ולכן צריך and and this and עמלק has an effect on that. ולכן צריך למחות זכר עמלק מאיש ועד שה, מאיש ועד אשה, ועולל ועד יונק, משור, you have to take everything. וכיון שיש פעולת בחינת עמלק בגוים, since עמלק is ראשית גוים, so you have the פעולה you you you have עמלק in גוים, שהרי ראשית גוים, וגם זה צריך למחות. And even that, they have to destroy, even the way it's in the referred to as the beginning of of the nations. ובשעת שלעתיד לבוא נאמר אז אהפוך אל עמים שפה ברורה, so the משיח will come, they they'll all the nations will change and they'll have all a clear language לקרוא כולם בשם השם, they'll all call in the name of השם, ולעבדו שכם אחד, they'll all make their all shoulder, they'll all get together to השם. לכן נאמר, בפסוק it says גם מגמל ועד חמור. It says everything, everybody, even גמל וחמור, מה שאין כן פירוש רש״י ענינו שייך לפשוטו של מקרא, רש״י doesn't bring it. So the pasuk could even add, cuz in in Le'asid lavo, everything will be for Elokus, so the pasuk adds. But Rashi doesn't and he doesn't say why here in in Chassidus, it just says לפשוטו של מקרא. אבל בחינת דומם, שהיא עבודה דקבלת עול, but in domem, domem, things which don't move, they we don't have to destroy. Why is that in the goyim? Huh? The goyim, no? Yeah. So, I mean, the the avodah is not with the goyim, the avodah is... No, but it's the goyim are the goyim within you. Doesn't say it, but that's what he means, the goyim that are within you, the goyishkeit. Huh? I don't know, see he doesn't taytsh, this is very, he doesn't say what גמל וחמור is. I would think that that would be the goyim, the non-kosher animals, not just the domem. No, domem we don't. Yeah, so so saying, you even take גמל וחמור as... He doesn't say, the pasuk does say it because that's included. That's Le'asid lavo. Le'asid lavo. In other words, לפי האמת, in other words, be-emet, how it's going to be, why Rashi doesn't bring it according to Chassidus, he doesn't say. But domem, which is kabbalat ol, that's just, no, an unmovable object rep- represents kabbalat ol. אם לא שויתי ודוממתי it says, and which means ביטול קבלת עול, דוממתי is like a like a דומם, בזה אין לעמלק אחיזה, there Amalek has no achizah. Holding of Amalek to destroy not to be the come this fall from Elokus, but if you have kabbalat ol, you have to worry about it. If you're a domem, he has no no control. ואדרבה, דבחינת קבלת עול הביטול, when you have קבלת עול הביטול, נעשה מחיית זכר עמלק, you destroy the zecher of עמלק גם בבחינת איש ועד שה, even the other איש ועד שה, ונעשה השם שלם והכסא שלם, then the שם becomes שלם and the כסא becomes שלם. No. Missing page? I only brought one page. Does the kabbalas ol then affect the מדות? Yeah, yeah. And then it changes everything, and then, yeah. The דומם is bitul and kabbalas ol? Huh? דומם is bitul and kabbalas ol? Yeah, yeah, דומם is, like a stone is always dripping kabbalas ol, you don't have a מציאות, that's it, you don't go around, you know, no gaavah. So why wouldn't the נפש, why wouldn't this אות be changed, why wouldn't it be changed after all the years it has been printed? I don't know if it has been changed. How many questions would people have had on learning a sicha, that they would have looked into it and answered? Everyone that learns the sicha has the kashya. Of course. So someone asked me to look up, I looked it up. I'll look it up again, you know what, I'll look it up. I don't remember, I'll look it up and I'll tell you. I think I looked it up once in the sefarim like this. So do they have any mareh makom on the on the דומם and and the and the bitul, right? And also that the דומם ביטול destroys... And mimela, yeah. Adraba, when you have kabbalas ol, you will destroy everything else. Maybe it means how the נפש אלוקית affects the נפש הבהמית, just from that point of view because of the ראשית and the קטנות it became more to be, to be stronger or its or its... to say, so it doesn't have as great of effect, an effect on the נפש הבהמית. Even though it doesn't say it, just like it doesn't say a lot of things in this last... Maybe, maybe. I didn't hear Rabbi Markowitz from Morristown, he's like a shtreimel and Munkatch. So he

says that every Parshas Zachor his mother used to make four kugels: epl, mern, lakshen and kartofl, and he used to eat it all to destroy Amalek. Amalek? It's an easy way to destroy it. It must be some of the geshmakke kugels, it must have tasted good. But how could people could destroy little little babies? You have to. And not babies, how could you just kill people like that? The Yidden of those days saw each person of Amalek, they saw the קליפה, they saw the Satan in him. The bible critics, they talk about this, so they always say the Jews are the same way, the ימח שמם we say the Nazis, and you also take a nation and destroy Amalek, take a Midian and destroy Midian. But the emes is in those days, I mean the Torah said, the אייבערשטער said, because this represents, not represents, this was the פנימיות of the klipah, and the klipah you have to destroy. But only the אייבערשטער could say it. That's the whole... Yasher koach. It's not as this, it's not the שיחה, they're staying at the שיחה. Say that a person finds himself far away and he doesn't have chametz and he didn't מבער חמץ for the mitzvah, is he allowed to buy? Before Pesach? Before Pesach, I'm talking about... No, here the shaila was on Pesach. Odai, odai, it says תשביתו goes on all of Pesach, if you happen to find chametz on Pesach, you have to מקיים תשביתו. So, guys didn't get a chance to do it, so they bought chametz on Pesach. Chametz, no, no, that's fine. There's no mitzvah that you have to get chametz to destroy, if you have chametz, you have to destroy it. What happens if someone wants to buy chametz? So the ביעור חמץ is still with a berachah? Yeah. So this is you say really all you really don't have to do it if you don't have? Right, but we do have Chabad מנהגים to look for it, to search for it. Okay, but yotzei if not? But the ruchniyus, the ruchniyus, we have... ...the ruchniyus... ...so you have to... ...Yoav, and all the Edomites... Yeah, destroyed all the people, it was a massacre of innocent people. Was he commanded to do that? It seemed like not, actually. It was kind of a criticism, but... ...to destroy the Edomites, Edomites, they're offspring of Amalek... Shaul was first commanded to... If you can look into this, on this course that you are talking about... What was the point here again that was... Something is destroying, but if made in order to fix, so you are not, the

destroying is called fixing it. Right, so how does it... Same thing here, if you write in order to erase, it's called erasing. If you remember in order to destroy... What you are doing is erasing. Yeah, because that's the purpose. It's like the Holocaust, if you remember in order to never happen again, that's destroying it. Well, there it's not destroying, there it's never to happen again to make sure that you're protected. Yasher koach, Yasher koach. Is it the ikar? Is that really or is it like ואהבת? No, what like ואהבת?