And something from the end of the parasha

The last episode in Parashath Beshallaḥ is that of the war with Amalek. This tends to get lost on Shabbath Beshallaḥ, because there's so much else to discuss in this rich, long parasha, but people discuss it in the season devoted directly to this issue, the week of Shabbath Zakhor and Ta‘anith Ester* and Purim.

(At least, that's how it falls this year. In the past two years, the order has been Ta‘anith Ester and then Shabbath Zakhor, and that's how it will be again next year, apparently, unless the calendar doesn't proceed as planned.)

Anyway, when Amalek attacks Israel, Moses sends Joshua to find warriors to fight Amalek (Exodus 17:9):

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֤ה אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁ֨עַ֙ בְּחַר־לָ֣נוּ אֲנָשִׁ֔ים וְצֵ֖א הִלָּחֵ֣ם בַּֽעֲמָלֵ֑ק מָחָ֗ר אָֽנֹכִ֤י נִצָּב֙ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַגִּבְעָ֔ה וּמַטֵּ֥ה הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים בְּיָדִֽי׃

And Moses ſaid vnto Ioshua, Chooſe vs out men, and goe out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will ſtand on the top of the hill, with the rodde of God in mine hand.

Our commentator comments on the word צא, "go out":

וצא. צ' מצויינת. רמז על מעשה מעלה: למעלה המלאכים ילחמו מלחמתינן. בחר לנו אנשים. אין אנשים אלא מלאכים, שנאמר: והנה שלשה אנשים. [...] וצא מצויין בתגין, רמז כאילו אומר להקדוש: אתה תצא להלחם מלחמתנו. וזהו וצא, מצויין למעלה, להקדוש אומר, וזהו שנאמר: מלחמה ליי בעמלק. צא בגימטריא השם ככתיבתו וכקריאתו.

And go out (ve-tzé). The tzadi is marked [with tagin], alluding to activities going on On High (in heaven): on high, the angels will fight our battle. Choose men for us -- the word men here means "angels"; for indeed, we see this word used for angels, as in Genesis 18:1: And behold, there were three men [coming to visit Abraham].
[...]
The word ve-tzé ("and go out!") is marked with tagin, indicating that it is as if [Moses] is addressing God directly: "Thou, go thou out to fight our battle!" This is the meaning of ve-tzé, marked [with tagin], that he is speaking to God. As the verse says: the Lord will have war with Amalek [Exodus 17:16, the last verse of our story and our parasha]. And the word צא in gematriya [equals 91, which is] the Name as written [יהוה, i.e. 26] plus the Name as pronounced [אדני, i.e. 65].

Now, although I wouldn't say that this is a great peshat interpretation of the word אנשים, men, in the direct context of the verse, it works very well in the broader context of the story. As our commentator himself says, the idea that God fights the battle against Amalek, on a cosmic level, is mentioned even in the Biblical text of the story, in the last first. (Compare this with other stories in Scripture, where the literal meaning of the verses seems to have nothing to do with God, but only with human skirmishes, and midrashic literature reads God into the story.)

Besides the Biblical verse, there is another text which I am sure must have been somewhere in our commentator's mind, namely, piece of a piyyut by R. El‘azar beribbi Qallir, for Shabbath Zakhor.

Not only was this piyyut universally part of Ashkenazic liturgy for that Shabbath in the Middle Ages, and even in many Ashkenazic synagogues even today, but we also know that the Ḥasidé Ashkenaz greatly esteemed piyyut, especially the piyyutim of R. El‘azar beribbi Qallir, the renowned old Palestinian master of piyyut. In fact, there are places in our manuscript, Bodleian 202, where our commentator directly quotes piyyutim of the Qalliri (though, as far as I have seen, without attribution -- perhaps because the quotations were so famous as to not need attribution).

Here is the quote, from the Silluq of the Qerova for Zakhor:

וְאַתָּה יְהֹוָה לְעוֹלָם תֵּשֵׁב / וְהוּא נֶגְדְּךָ בְּמַטָּה יוֹשֵׁב
תָּפוּשׂ מִדְבָּר וְכָל הַיִשּׁוּב / אֲנִי וְאַפְסִי עוֹד בְּלֵב מִתְחַשֵׁב
אִם לֹא עַתָּה תָקוּם וְתַקְשֵׁב / בִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה קִימוֹת נְקָמוֹת לְחַשֵּׁב
בְּפַחַד וָפַחַת וָפַח לִפְקוֹד עַל הַיּוֹשֵׁב / וְאִם אַיִן כַּגֵּר תֵּחָשֵׁב
וְכָל הַמּוֹנֶה וְסוֹפֵר וְחוֹשֵׁב / קֵץ הַפְּלָאוֹת לְהָבִין וּלְחַשֵׁב
נָשְׁתָה גְבוּרָתוֹ מִמְּחַשֵׁב / וְלֹא יִמְצָא מַעֲנֶה לְהָשֵׁב

וְיֶחֱשֶׁה דוּמִיָּה מֵהַקְשֵׁב / וּבֶאֱמוּנָה כְּסָלָיו יְיַשֵׁב

וְזֹאת עַל לִבּוֹ יָשֵׁב / וְיֹאמַר עַד יַשְׁקִיף וְיֵרֶא וְיַקְשֵׁב

And Thou, O Lord, sittest [enthroned] forever, / and he [Amalek], opposite you, sitteth down below.
All the land, both wild and settled, is caught up [in his possession?].* / He thinks in his heart: "There is just me, and nothing else!" --
Unless Thou wilt arise, and heed [our prayer]**, / calculating acts of vengeance, in accordance with Thy thirteen acts of rising up,***
To wreak dread, and a pit, and a trap, upon all who sit [against Thee]; / and if [Thou dost not take vengeance], Thou will be considered like a foreigner [without vested interest]
And all who count, and calculate, and figure / the time for the eschaton, to ponder and consider its wonders,
Have lost all skill at calculation, / and have no answer to respond [to Amalek].

*I'm not sure exactly what this means; it could mean that Amalek himself is somehow "caught" [trapped] in the wilderness and the settled lands.
**Taqshev here could mean "heed our prayer", as in most dialects of Hebrew; but paytanic Hebrew often uses the hif‘il of קשב to mean to announce, so it could mean that here.
***Thirteen acts of rising up: according to the first interpretation in this commentary here, this refers to the thirteen times in Scripture where it says: "Arise, O Lord!"

The Qalliri thus is identifying Amalek not only with the Roman Empire of his day (which the European Jews would identify with the Christian Kingdoms of their own day, as, indeed, the medieval Christians did)*, but also with the Devil. And certainly, he is locating the primary battle as being on the divine plane: We're not going to fight Amalek, but we pray to You, O God, to fight for us -- as in our tagin commentator's interpretation of the verse: "And go Thou out, fight against Amalek!"

*See, e.g. Michael T. Clanchy, Abelard: A Medieval Life. Blackwell. 1997, p. 17:

Abelard and Heloise did not know that they were 'medieval' and that they would therefore be classified as peculiar and primitive 900 years later. [...] Abelard and Heloise would have been astonished to be told that they had lived in the Dark Ages, when the Latin classics were no longer understood and the Roman Empire had ceased to exist. They would have found this unrecognizable. [...] In Abelard's time the Roman Emperor semper Augustus was still the most important ruler in the West, even though he was elected in Germany and was often opposed by the Papacy. As for the ancient classics, Abelard and Heloise and their fellow writers were living proof that Latin learning flourished. They did not think, as later humanists did, that the only true Latin had been written in ancient Rome and the best they could do was imitate it, as that could only be the death of Latin and the end of Roman power.