Annihilating Amalek/2

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.

Sources: R. Yosef Bekhor ShorDevarim 25:17-19About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, AbarbanelShemot 17 QuestionsShemot 17Devarim 25Shemuel I 15About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel,¹ ShadalShemot 1:15Shemot 17:14Devarim 25:12About R. S.D. Luzzatto, R. S"R HirschShemot 17:8Shemot 17:14Devarim 25:17Devarim 25:18Devarim 25:19About R. S"R Hirsch, R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 17:8Devarim 25:17-19About R. D"Z Hoffmann

"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 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 all other nations trembled before God in the aftermath of the miracles of the Exodus, 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.

Sources: Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 17:14Devarim 25:18Devarim 25:19About R. Avraham ibn Ezra,¹⁷ RambanShemot 17:14Shemot 17:16About R. Moshe Nachmanides, TurLong Commentary Shemot 17:14About R. Yaakov b. Asher, AbarbanelShemot 17 QuestionsShemot 17Devarim 25Shemuel I 15About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel,¹⁸ NetzivShemot 17:14About R. Naftali Z"Y Berlin¹⁹

"וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" – According to Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Abarbanel, the subject of this phrase is Amalek.²⁰ 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.²¹

Why did Amalek attack? Abarbanel emphasizes that the Amalekites had nothing to gain by attacking,²² and fought only to denigrate God's name by showing that they were more powerful than He.²³

"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.²⁴ 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,²⁵ 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.²⁶

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 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.²⁷ At this point, it was already known that he was to be the next leader, and as such, he was the appropriate audience.²⁸ 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.²⁹

"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.³⁰

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.

Sources: RalbagShemot 17About R. Levi b. Gershon, U. CassutoShemot 17:8Shemot 17:14About U. Cassuto

Why did Amalek attack?

• Ralbag associates Amalek's attack with the blessing given to Esav, his ancestor. Yitzchak had promised that Yaakov would rule over Esav, but that when Yaakov was down, Esav would be able to throw off his yoke. As such, seeing that Israel was unlearned in war, weak, and thirsty, Amalek took the opportunity to kill off Yaakov=Israel and be rid of his servitude once and for all.
• Cassuto, instead, suggests that this was a preemptive strike. Amalek dwelled in the Negev³¹ and recognized that the Israelites were soon to invade their territory. They, therefore, decided to conquer the nation before they themselves were attacked.³²

"וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" – According to Ralbag, the phrase refers back to the Israelites,³³ who, at the time of the initial attack, were not yet infused with a fear of God.³⁴ This is one of the reasons Amalek chose to fight when it did, believing that if the nation was not God-fearing, they might not merit God's providence and protection from attack.

"וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כׇּל הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים" – For Ralbag, the Israel's weakness is one of Amalek's main motivations for attack.³⁵ Cassuto sees this as simply a tactic of war.³⁶

When to destroy? – According to Cassuto's understanding of the command, one would have thought that the killing off of Amalek would be most relevant prior to the conquest, not after the nation had already settled the land.

"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 are a threat, there is no issue of children being punished for parents' sins.

Relationship to command regarding seven nations – For Cassuto, the command to obliterate Amalek might not be all that different from the similar directive regarding the seven nations of Canaan. The geographic location of both make them a threat to Israel's survival leading to the commands to destroy them.

"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 which makes the explicit command not to despise Edom puzzling. Ralbag might answer that it was only one branch of the family that actually desired to kill off Israel and so 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 YishmaelBeshalach Amalek 1Beshalach Amalek 2About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael

"וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" – 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 deficient observance and fear of God paved the way for Amalek's attack.³⁷

Why did Amalek attack? – The attack is viewed as a response to Israel's sins and laxness in observing mitzvot.

"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.³⁸

Context in Shemot – The previous story in Shemot relays how the nation tested Hashem and complained about lack of water, and thus sets the backdrop of a non-God fearing nation, which needed the Amalekites to attack to learn their lesson.

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. Closer parallels might be found in the total destruction of Arad after its attack on Israel in Bemidbar 21, 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.³⁹

¹ See below that Abarbanel combines this approach with the idea that Amalek was attempting to dishonor Hashem.

² This is also the position of the SifreBehaalotekha 88About Sifre, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum Yerushalmi, and Rashi Devarim 25:18, and that of Ibn Ezra and Ramban cited below. According to this reading, Devarim 25:17 ("זָכוֹר אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְךָ עֲמָלֵק") serves as a heading for the three actions of Amalek listed in verse 18: how Amalek happened upon Israel ("אֲשֶׁר קָרְךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ"), how they attacked the weak and tired ("וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כׇּל הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ"), and how they (Amalek) did not fear gods or God ("וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים"). Thus, the words "וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ", which refer back to the Israelites, are only a parenthetical remark coming to emphasize how Amalek preyed on the weary, but are not a mid-verse switch of the subject (which remains Amalek). [Cf. the Sifre which lists this case among its examples of an unannounced subject switch in the middle of a verse.]

This reading is supported by the vocalization of "יָרֵא" (with a kamatz under the yud) as a verb (third person, past tense). [Had it been describing the Israelites, one would have expected the adjectival form "יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים" to match the previous two adjectives of "עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ".] It also conforms to the cantillation marks in the verse, which place an etnachta (roughly equivalent to a semicolon) under the word "וְיָגֵעַ", effectively separating the description of Israel ("וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ") from the actions ascribed to Amalek ("וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים"). However, see the Mekhilta below for the opposing factors which support the possibility that "וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" refers to the Children of Israel.

³ While Abarbanel learns from this that part of the crime of Amalek was their attack on God (see below), R. Hirsch asserts instead that the Amalekites chose to ignore the fact that Hashem sides with the weak and just rather than with the mighty and militant.

⁴ This interpretation would need to read "וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" as if it said "וְלֹא [היה] יָרֵא [את] אֱלֹהִים". Since "אֱלֹהִים" is a defined object, a preceding "את" would be expected. See Who are the Midwives for discussion of other potential cases of a missing "את".

⁵ See his comments on Shemot 1:15.

⁶ Even within idolatrous nations, there is generally some fear of the divinity which inculcates a certain sense of right and wrong but Amalek was lacking this.

⁷ For other places in Tanakh where this connotation might be implied see Bereshit 20:11, Shemot 1:17, Vayikra 19:14,32, 25:17, Iyyov 1:1, and 2:3. See N. Leibowitz, Iyyunim Chadashim BeSefer Shemot (Jerusalem, 1970): 32-33 and N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1986): 25-26, 120-121 who elaborate on this point, and see יראת א-להים.

⁸ See M. Leibtag, who presents a potential scenario of what transpired. The preceding story in Shemot describes the nation's complaint for water while in Refidim. Shemot 17:6 tells that the rock which Moshe hit and from which came forth water was not there, but in Chorev. M. Leibtag suggests that the nation was thus forced to leave their campsite to travel to Chorev. It was specifically at this point, when only the weakest of the weak were left unprotected at the campsite, that Amalek struck.

⁹ See Shofetim 6:3-4.

¹⁰ See Shemuel I 30:1-2.

¹¹ See Bereshit 6:5-7.

¹² See Vayikra 18:24-30, 20:22-24.

¹³ See the note above regarding Abarbanel's synthesis of two approaches.

¹⁴ According to Shadal, it is unlikely, at this early stage, that Hashem was hinting to Moshe that Yehoshua was ultimately to lead the nation into Israel and wage the wars of conquest in place of Moshe. Such a thought would have been very demoralizing to Moshe at the beginning of his tenure as leader.

¹⁵ Both might suggest that the ultimate fight could not happen at the present given the nation's fledgling state and lack of military expertise.

¹⁶ He notes that the verses reads "תִּמְחֶה אֶת זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק", i.e. it is the memory of Amalek, rather than the person of Amalek, that must be continuously obliterated.

¹⁷ The roots of this position are already found in the TanchumaKi Tetze 9About the Tanchuma and in RashiShemot 17:14About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki who emphasize how Amalek was the first of the nations to dare attack the Children of Israel. Neither, though, connects this to Amalek's defiance of Hashem or any desire to desecrate His name.

¹⁸ See above that Abarbanel combines this approach with the idea that Amalek's crime was his immoral behavior.

¹⁹ See also Derekh HaKodeshShemot 17:14About R. Avraham Mordechai Piorka.

²⁰ See the note above for an extensive discussion of this rendering.

²¹ The Netziv, though, disagrees and maintains that "וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" refers to Israel, who were not God fearing at the time. See the Mekhilta below for analysis of this interpretation.

²² This was neither a war of conquest (as the Children of Israel did not as yet possess any land) nor a war of defense. Moreover, it was not in response to any provocation.

²³ The other commentators are less extreme in their formulation and simply say that the attack on Israel betrayed a lack of fear in Hashem, rather than an active rebellion against God. They are perhaps hesitant to adopt Abarbanel's approach since there is no explicit evidence for it in the text.

²⁴ See Devarim 9:14.

²⁵ See the note above regarding Abarbanel's synthesis of two approaches.

²⁶ Alternatively, he proposes that the nation is obligated to obliterate Amalek for their actions in Refidim, whereas Hashem will punish them for destroying the Mikdash. [This is based on the assumption that Amalek = Esav = Rome. Netziv suggests instead that Hashem was promising to erase the legacy of Amalek, i.e. the belief in nature rather than God's providence, while the Israelites were commanded to destroy the physical kingdom of Amalek.

²⁷ Ibn Ezra is consistent with his general willingness to postulate that events in the Torah are sometimes recorded out of order. See About Ibn Ezra.

²⁸ Even if the directive was not to be fulfilled in Yehoshua's own time, he needed to be informed of the obligations that were to be incumbent on the nation in the future as well.

²⁹ See also Abarbanel who proposes that Moshe was simply encouraging Yehoshua by telling him that the mission Yehoshua began in Refidim would ultimately be completed by Hashem.

³⁰ See R. Hirsch above who similarly suggests a somewhat metaphoric read of Hashem's statement.

³¹ See Bemidbar 13:29.

³² Support for Cassuto comes from the fact that, in the aftermath of the Sin of the Spies, when some of the Israelites (the מעפילים) attempted to enter the land from the south, they were immediately attacked by the native Amalekites. (See Bemidbar 14:45)

³³ See the Mekhilta below for discussion of the merits of this interpretation.

³⁴ This is evident from the previous story where the nation tests Hashem and complains about lack of water.

³⁵ It should be noted that this approach stands in contrast to the above which suggests that Israel was feared by all the surrounding nations and viewed as invincible.

³⁶ Unlike the first approach above, though, he does not stress the immorality of the action.

³⁷ The Mekhilta's position is cited by Chizkuni and adopted by Ralbag and the Netziv cited above. According to this reading, all three terms, "וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" refer to Israel and provide the backdrop for why Amalek was attacking specifically now.

³⁸ See the Ma'asei HashemMa'asei Torah 3About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi who notes that all enemies try to attack at a point when their opponent is weak and tired, just as Achitofel advised Avshalom regarding David (Shemuel II 17:2). Cf. the Sifre Devarim 296 which proposes a more metaphoric read of the verse, suggesting that Amalek attacked specifically those who were spiritually weak and mired in sin.

³⁹ Elisha had told Yoash to shoot his arrow, symbolic of the defeat of Aram. When Yoash only shoots three time, the prophet rebukes him that he should have shot five or six times until Aram was totally destroyed.