Annihilating Amalek/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Annihilating Amalek
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Most commentators view the command to annihilate Amalek as a singular one which resulted from the gravity of their sin. This approach splits into two, with R"Y Bekhor Shor and many others highlighting the immoral conduct of Amalek (בין אדם לחברו) in preying on the weak and defenseless, while Ibn Ezra and Ramban emphasize Amalek's defiance of Hashem (בין אדם למקום). Abarbanel synthesizes both aspects and suggests that, as a consequence, both Israel and Hashem play a role in eliminating Amalek.
Others, though, understand that neither the Amalekites' actions nor their punishment were so extraordinary or reflect a particularly grievous interpersonal or religious sin. Thus, Ralbag and Cassuto focus instead on the potential danger which Amalek's existence posed to the security and survival of the Children of Israel. Finally, the Mekhilta appears to go a step further in viewing the destruction of Amalek as merely the prototype for the standard fate of all enemies who dare to attack Israel.
Immoral Conduct
Amalek attacked without just cause and in an unscrupulous fashion. They are punished more harshly than other enemies of Israel because of their terrorist mindset and lack of moral norms.
"וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" – All of these commentators maintain that the phrase describes Amalek rather than the Israelites.2 They differ, though, in their understanding of the phrase "יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים":
- According to both Abarbanel and R. Hirsch,3 the verse is saying that Amalek had no fear of Hashem.4
- Shadal5 and R. David Zvi Hoffmann, in contrast, claim that the phrase means that Amalek had no fear of any god.6 "יראת א-להים" is not limited to one's belief in Hashem, but instead refers to one's moral and ethical conduct as a whole.7
Why did Amalek attack? – According to these commentators, Amalek had no good reason for attacking, as it was neither a war of defense nor conquest for them, nor was their any provocation on the part of Israel. R. Hirsch adds that Amalek's only motivation was the glory of victory and their scorn of peace-loving nations.
"וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כׇּל הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים" – According to this approach, Amalek's preying on the weak stragglers is what underscored their immorality.8
Context in Devarim – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Shadal point out that the context of the command in Devarim is one of dishonest business dealings, supporting the idea that Amalek's crime is also related to his crooked actions and military tactics. R. Hirsch adds that the preceding chapters in Devarim detail the various commandments which guide Israel to be an ethical nation. The Torah then contrasts the Israelite lifestyle, a paradigm of morality, with that of its antithesis, Amalek.
A continuous pattern – Amalek displays similar behavior, in targeting civilians rather than armed forces, in their plundering of the land in the time of Gidon,9 and in their looting of David's camp in Ziklag and making off with the defenseless women and children while David was away in battle.10
Biblical parallels – The language of "מחה" and the concept of wiping out a population for its crimes appears also in the story of the Flood.11 Like here, the stated reason is the world's immorality ("מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ חָמָס").
Relationship to command regarding seven nations – The Children of Israel were similarly commanded to destroy the nations of Canaan because of their immorality.12
Hashem or Israel? – Abarbanel maintains that both play a role in the destruction of Amalek, as the attack was aimed at both Israel and God.13
Yehoshua's future role – Abarbanel and Shadal assert that Hashem's instructions in Shemot 17 did not imply that Yehoshua was to play any special role in the ultimate conquest of Amalek. Rather, since he was the leader in this first battle, he was also given the honor of recording the event and knowing that the job would be completed.14
When to destroy? According to Abarbanel, Hashem commanded the nation to destroy Amalek only after they would be settled in the land of Israel, in order that they not be overwhelmed by simultaneously needing to conquer both the Canaanites and Amalek. R. D"Z Hoffmann, in contrast, asserts that Hashem wanted to clarify that destroying Amalek was not just another war of conquest, but rather a holy war against immorality.15
"מִדֹּר דֹּר" – According to R. Hirsch, the ongoing war is against the legacy of Amalek,16 i.e. against glorifying power and the idea that might makes right. Hashem is telling the Children of Israel never to forget that they represent the antithesis of Amalek. The other commentators might suggest that Hashem, knowing that Amalek was not destroyed totally in the time of Shaul, is commanding that we continuously fight throughout the generations, until the mission is achieved.
Disrespect for the Divine
Whereas the miracles of the Exodus generally achieved their goal of having all of the nations recognize Hashem and tremble before Him,17 Amalek had no such fear but rather desired to profane Hashem's name. In eliminating the Amalekites, Hashem turned them into an example from which the rest of the world would learn.
"וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" – According to Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Abarbanel, the subject of this phrase is Amalek.21 When Hashem tells the nation to remember what Amalek did to them, He is pointing to the problematic aspect of Amalek's actions, that he had no fear of God.22
Why did Amalek attack? Abarbanel emphasizes that the Amalekites had nothing to gain by attacking,23 and fought only to denigrate God's name by showing that they were more powerful than He.24
"וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כׇּל הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים" – This approach might view Amalek's attack from the rear as simple military strategy, but no worse.
Biblical parallels – The language of "מחה" and the notion of Hashem liquidating a nation appears also in the story of the Sin of the Golden Calf.25 In this instance, as well, Hashem proposes to kill those who did not fear Him and rebelled against Him.
Hashem or Israel? – Abarbanel maintains that both play a role in the destruction of Amalek,26 as Amalek targeted both Hashem and the nation. In contrast, the Tur suggests that the Torah is simply saying that if the Children of Israel do their job, Hashem will help as well.27
When to destroy? Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Abarbanel all assert that Hashem wanted the nation to first wipe out the seven nations, and thus did not instruct them to kill off Amalek until that mission was accomplished. Otherwise the combined task might have been too daunting.
Yehoshua's future role – According to Ibn Ezra, Hashem's instructions to Yehoshua regarding the annihilation of Amalek were first told to him only in the fortieth year.28 At this point, it was already known that he was to be the next leader, and as such, he was the appropriate audience.29 Ramban adds that had the conquest actually been finished during his era, Yehoshua would have been the one to complete the task. Only because enemies abounded until the monarchic period, was Shaul chosen instead.30
"מִדֹּר דֹּר" – Netziv suggests that Hashem's eternal battle is against not just the physical nation of Amalek, but against their belief system which denies the concept of Divine providence. It is this "memory" or legacy, that Hashem promises to obliterate from the world.31
Existential Threat
The Amalekites desired to completely exterminate Israel. Thus, wiping them out was the only way to eliminate their ongoing threat to the Israelites' survival.
Why did Amalek attack?
- Ralbag associates Amalek's attack with the blessing given to his ancestor Esav. Yitzchak had promised that Yaakov would rule over Esav, but that when Yaakov would be weakened, Esav would be able to throw off his yoke. As such, seeing that Israel was untested in war and struggling to adapt to the wilderness conditions, Amalek attempted to take advantage of the opportunity to kill off Yaakov=Israel and be rid of his servitude once and for all.
- Cassuto suggests that this was a preemptive strike. Amalek dwelled in the Negev32 and realized that the Israelites were soon to invade their territory on their way to the Land of Israel.33 They, therefore, decided to go on the offense before they themselves would be attacked.
"וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" – According to Ralbag, the phrase refers to the Israelites,34 who, at the time of the initial attack, were not yet infused with a fear of God.35 This is one of the reasons Amalek chose to fight when it did, believing that since the Children of Israel were not yet God-fearing, they might not merit God's providence and protection.
"וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כׇּל הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים" – For Ralbag, Israel's weakness is one of Amalek's main motivations for attack.36 Cassuto, in contrast, sees this as simply an effective battle tactic.37
Hashem's motivations – According to Ralbag, Hashem does not usually interfere in the natural course of the world, and thus He did not prevent Amalek from attacking. Since the nation was not God-fearing at the time, they did not merit any miracles, and found themselves truly in danger. Only Hashem's intervention (despite their being undeserving) in the end saved them.38
Continuous pattern – Ralbag points to Amalek's attacks on Israel in the time of the Shofetim, David, and the Purim story, to prove that throughout history, whenever Amalek thought they were capable, they attempted to destroy Israel.39
Biblical parallels – Ralbag compares Amalek's desire to attack when God's providence was not protecting Israel to the similar desire of Midyan in the fortieth year in the wilderness. There, too, the Divine command is to eliminate the plotting nation.
Relationship to command regarding seven nations – For Cassuto, the command to obliterate Amalek may be similar to the directive regarding the seven nations of Canaan. The geographic location of each makes them a threat to Israel's survival, thus leading to the respective commands to destroy them.
When to destroy? Ralbag asserts that the command needed to be pushed off until a time when the nation was actually capable of completely destroying Amalek.40
"מִדֹּר דֹּר" – This approach would understand that the obligation extends to every generation, so long as the Amalekites are not yet obliterated. Since the Amalekites are not being killed as a punishment for past actions, but because they themselves pose a continuous threat, there is no issue of children being punished for parents' sins.
"לֹא תְתַעֵב אֲדֹמִי" – According to Ralbag, one might have thought that all descendants of Esav should be considered a threat and thus there should be a command to wipe all of them out. The explicit command not to despise Edom is thus puzzling. Ralbag might answer that it was only one branch of the family that actually desired to kill off Israel, and therefore only they are targeted by Hashem's command.
No Different than Others
Neither Amalek's actions nor their punishment was exceptional. Throughout Tanakh, enemies of Israel are annihilated either by the direct hand of Hashem or in battle with Israelite armies.
Sources: Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael
"וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" – According to the "אחרים אומרים" in the Mekhilta,41 the phrase does not refer to Amalek, whose actions did not reflect either a lack of morality or a defiance of God, but rather refers to the Children of Israel, whose not being fearful of God and deficient observance paved the way for Amalek's attack.42
Why did Amalek attack? – The attack is viewed as a response to Israel's sins and their laxness in observing Torah and mitzvot.43 Amalek functions almost as a Divine agent to punish and educate the nation.44
"וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כׇּל הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים" – According to this approach, Amalek's actions are not considered immoral, but merely reflect the strategies of many who go to war.45
Context in Shemot – The previous story in Shemot relates how the nation tested Hashem and complained about lack of water. It thus sets the backdrop of a nation which does not fear God and learned their lesson of the need to rely upon Hashem, only through being attacked by the Amalekites.
Biblical parallels – The Mekhilta points out that Amalek's punishment set an example of the fate that awaits all those who harm Israel, and it compares it to the case of Paroh and his army who drowned in Yam Suf. Other parallels to complete liquidation may be found in the total destruction of Arad after its attack on Israel in Bemidbar 21, the near total decimation of Midyan in Bemidbar 31,46 the command to obliterate the seven nations, or Elisha's reprimand to Yoash that he should have ensured a complete destruction of his archenemy, Aram.47
Hashem or Israel? – This approach would likely maintain that the Children of Israel are instructed to be Hashem's agents in wiping out Amalek.
