Annihilating Amalek/2

Wiping Out Amalek

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

Immoral Warfare

In contrast to other enemies of Israel, Amalek attacked without just cause and in an unscrupulous fashion. They are punished more harshly than others since they represent a militant, terrorist mindset, and lack any sense of morality.

Sources:JosephusAntiquities 3:2:5About Josephus, AbarbanelShemot 17Devarim 25About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel,¹ ShadalDevarim 25:12About R. S.D. Luzzatto, R. S"R HirschShemot 17:8Shemot 17:14About R. S"R Hirsch, R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 17:8Devarim 25:17-19About R. D"Z Hoffmann,

"וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" – All these commentators maintain that the phrase describes Amalek rather than the Israelites. They differ, though, in their understanding of "יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים".

• According to both Abarbanel and R. Hirsch, the verse is saying that Amalek had no fear of Hashem.²
• Shadal³ and R. David Zvi Hoffmann, in contrast, claim that the phrase means that Amalek had no fear of any god.⁴ "יראת אלוהים" is not limited to one's belief in Hashem, but instead refers to one's moral and ethical conduct as a whole.⁵

Why did Amalek attack? – According to these commentators, Amalek had no just cause for fighting. This was neither a war of defense nor conquest, 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 peoples.

"וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כׇּל הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים" – According to this approach, it is the attack specifically on the weak stragglers which highlights the immorality of Amalek.

Obligation on Hashem or Israel? – Abarbanel maintains that there is a dual obligation, as the attack was aimed at both Israel and God.

Yehoshua's role – Shadal asserts that Hashem did not mean that Yehoshua was to play any special role in the ultimate conquest of Amalek. Rather, being the head warrior in this first battle, he was given the honor of recording the event.

When to destroy? – According to Abarbanel Hashem commanded the nation to first destroy Amalek when they were at peace, since He did not want them to be overwhelmed both by the wars of conquest and this additional command. R. Hoffmann, in contrast asserts that Hashem wanted it recognized that this was not just another war of conquest, but rather a holy war against immorality.

Shaul's obligation and failure

David and Amalek – Amalek's attack on David's camp at Ziklag shows the same disdain for just tactics in war as the original battle. Here, too, the helpless women and children are targeted.

"מִדֹּר דֹּר" – According to R. Hirsch, the ongoing war is one against the legacy of Amalek,⁶ against glorifying power and the idea that might is right. Hashem is telling the Children of Israel never to forget what they stand for and how they are the antithesis of Amalek.

Relationship to command regarding seven nations –

Crux of the position –

Disregard for the Divine

Sources:Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 17:14About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, RambanShemot 17:16About R. Moshe Nachmanides, TurLong Commentary Shemot 17:14About R. Yaakov b. Asher, Tzeror HaMorShemot 17:8About R. Avraham Saba, BiurShemot 17:14About the Biur, NetzivShemot 17:14About R. Naftali Z"Y Berlin, Derekh HaKodeshShemot 17:14About R. Avraham Mordechai Piorka,

–

–

–

–

–

Crux of the position –

Practical Threat

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

–

–

–

–

–

Crux of the position –

Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelBeshalach Amalek 2About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, TanchumaKi Tetze 9About the Tanchuma, RashiShemot 17:14About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorDevarim 25:18About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, R. Yosef ibn KaspiShemot 17:16About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, AbarbanelShemot 17About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, MalbimShemot 17:14About R. Meir Leibush Weiser,

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

² 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.

³ See his comments on Shemot 1:15.

⁴ 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.

⁵ 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. See also -- for further discussion.

⁶ He notes that the verses reads, "תִּמְחֶה אֶת זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק". It is the memory of Amalek, rather than the person of Amalek, that must be continuously obliterated.