Q. I keep wondering, we have a mitzvah to erase any remembrance of Amalek, and we are to remind ourselves every day of it. If it wouldn’t be because of this mitzvah that we keep so diligently, would not have the name of Amalek been forgotten a long time ago? It seems that only the Torah and we are the lone ones that care about an ancient name that no one else knows or gives a hoot about. Isn’t this a self defeating Mitzvah?

A. Ramban (Pashas Ki Teitzeh) writes that the mitzvah of remembering what Amalek did to us is attached to the mitzvah of having that nation obliterated. Mishna Berura (685: 16) relates this to the case of one who did not hear the reading of Pashas Zachor. Can he comply after the fact, with the keriah of Amalek’s Torah reading on Pashas Beshalach (also read on Purim) in which Mechias Amolek is not mentioned? He mentions that according to the Ramban he would not, however Mogen Avrohom (ibid.) disagrees. Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvos (189) seems to agree with the opinion of the Ramban. See also Chinuch and Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvah 603) in regards to women’s obligation in regards to Zachor since the may not be compelled on the corporal war against Amalek.

Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a explained that the precept of Mechias Amalek, is the annihilation of all material and physical remnants that may still be extant and can carry that name, even if it is only in spirit or values, today or in the future. To be able to accomplish that task we have to constantly be aware and maintain the memory of what Amalek did.

He also pointed out to Chidushey Chasam Sofer (Sanhedrin 39:2) that Pharaoh and Hamman, both were credited with their memory being maintained, since, albeit very unintentional and indirectly, they caused a great Kidush Hashem, by their unaccomplished wrongful intentions.

It is worthwhile to mention a parable recorded in Yalkut (end of Beshalach) describing a king who placed a fierce guard dog to watch over his vineyard. His own son the prince, unlawfully trespassed and was bitten by the dog. From then on whenever the king wanted to remind his son of the perils of neglecting the king’s commands, he would tell the story of what the vicious dog did. Accordingly remembering Amalek may be more of an indirect message to us.

It is also interesting to point out that Admur Yissachar Dov Rokeach of Belz Zt’L (quoted in Noam Devarim p. 131) mentions that in our days when Mechias Amalek may be a practical impossibility, we comply with the mitzvah when praying earnestly for mechias Amalek. Since Rashi (Tehilim 20: 8) explains that the word ‘nazkir” (as in zachor) means also tefilah.

Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a