Annihilating Amalek/2

Annihilating 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: R. Yosef Bekhor ShorDevarim 25:17-19About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, AbarbanelShemot 17Devarim 25About 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. They differ, though, in their understanding of the phrase "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 א-להים" 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 good reason for attacking, as it was neither a war of defense or 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 nations.

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

Context – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Shadal point out that the context of the command in Devarim is one of unjust business dealings, supporting the idea that Amalek's crime, too, related to his crooked actions and military tactics. R. Hirsch adds that many of the commandments listed in the parashah deal with one's relations with fellow men, guiding Israel to be an ethical nation. The Torah then contrasts the Israelite lifestyle, a paradigm of morality, with Amalek, its antithesis.

A continuous pattern – Later in history, Amalek show a similar disdain for moral principles. In the time of Gidon they plunder the land,⁶ an attack which harms civilians rather than armed forces. Similarly, later they attack David's camp in Ziklag,⁷ once again targeting the helpless women and children.

Biblical parallels – The language of "מחייה" and the concept of wiping out a nation for its crimes appears also in the stories of the flood⁸ and the Sin of the Golden Calf.⁹ In the former, like here, the stated reason is the world's violence.

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 leader in this first battle, he was given the honor of recording the event.¹⁰

When to destroy? – According to Abarbanel, Hashem commanded the nation to destroy Amalek only when they were settled in the land of Israel, since He did not want them to be overwhelmed both by the wars of conquest and this additional command. R. D"Z 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.¹¹

Shaul's obligation and failure –

"מִדֹּר דֹּר" – According to R. Hirsch, the ongoing war is against the legacy of Amalek,¹² 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 others 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 task is accomplished.

Relationship to command regarding seven nations –

Disrespect for the Divine

Amalek's attack on the Children of Israel stemmed from a lack of fear of God and a desire to profane His name. Whereas all other nations trembled before God in the aftermath of the miracles of the Exodus, Amalek had no such fear. In wiping out Amalek, Hashem was not only punishing them but also setting them up as an example for others to learn from.

Sources: Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 17:14Devarim 25:18Devarim 25:19About R. Avraham ibn Ezra,¹³ RambanShemot 17:14Shemot 17:16About R. Moshe Nachmanides, TurLong Commentary Shemot 17:14About R. Yaakov b. Asher, AbarbanelShemot 17Devarim 25Shemuel I 15About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel,¹⁴ NetzivShemot 17:14About R. Naftali Z"Y Berlin, Derekh HaKodeshShemot 17:14About R. Avraham Mordechai Piorka

"וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" – According to this approach, the subject of this phrase is Amalek. When Hashem tells the nation to remember what Amalek did to them, He also points to the problematic aspect of their actions, that Amalek had no fear of God.

Why did Amalek attack?Abarbanel emphasizes that Amalek had nothing to gain by attacking,¹⁵ and only fought so as to denigrate God's name by showing that they were more powerful than He.¹⁶

"וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כׇּל הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים" –

Context –

Biblical parallels – The language of "מחייה" and the concept of wiping out a nation for its crimes appears also in the stories of the flood¹⁷ and the Sin of the Golden Calf.¹⁸ In the latter, like here, Hashem proposes to kill those who did not fear Hashem.

Obligation on Hashem or Israel? – According to Abarbanel, Amalek targeted both Hashem and the nation, so both are obligated in their extermination.¹⁹

When to destroy? - Ibn Ezra and Ramban 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.

Yehoshua's role – According to Ibn Ezra, Hashem's directive to Yehoshua regarding the annihilation of Amalek was first told to Him in the fortieth year. At this point, it was already known that he was to be the next leader, and as such, he was the appropriate audience.²⁰ 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.

Shaul's obligation and failure –

"מִדֹּר דֹּר" –

Relationship to command regarding seven nations –

Existential Threat

Amalek desired to completely exterminate Israel and, unless wiped out, it would continuously present a threat to the nation's 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 Negev and recognized that the Israelites were soon to invade their territory. They, therefore, decided to conquer the nation before they themselves were attacked.

"וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" – According to Ralbag, the phrase refers back to the Israelites, who, at the time of the initial attack, were not yet infused with a fear of God.²¹ 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.²² Cassuto sees this as simply a tactic of war.²³

Context –

Obligation on Hashem or Israel? –

Yehoshua's role – Yehoshua, being the general of Israel during this initial battle, and eventually the one to lead the conquest, is the logical choice to heed the command to obliterate Amalek, even if it in the end it is only during the monarchy that the nations actually fight.

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.

Shaul's obligation and failure –

"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

Amalek's actions were not significantly different than other nations who similarly attacked Israel, and their punishment, too, is not exceptional. God often punishes those who try to kill the Children of Israel with annihilation.

Sources: Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelBeshalach Amalek 2About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

JosephusAntiquities 3:2:5About Josephus, R. Yosef ibn KaspiShemot 17:16About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, MalbimShemot 17:14About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, Tzeror HaMorShemot 17:8About R. Avraham Saba,

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, and see יראת א-להים.

⁶ See Shofetim 6:3-4.

⁷ See Shemuel I. 30:1-2

⁸ See Bereshit 6:5-7

⁹ See Devarim 9:14

¹⁰ 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 head the wars of conquest rather than Moshe. Such a thought would be very demoralizing to Moshe at the beginning of his tenure as leader.

¹¹ Both might suggest that the ultimate fight could not happen at the present given the nation's fledgling state and lack of military expertise.

¹² 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.

¹³ 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 disregard of Hashem or any desire to desecrate His name.

¹⁴ See above that Abarbanel combines this approach with the idea that Amalek's crime was his immorality in war.

¹⁵ This was neither a war of conquest (as the Children of Israel did not as yet own any land) nor a war of defense. Moreover, it was not in response to any provocation.

¹⁶ The others are less extreme in their formulation and simply say that the attack on Israel betrayed a lack of fear in Hashem, but do not present this as an active rebellion against God (since there is no explicit evidence of that in the text.)

¹⁷ See Bereshit 6:5-7

¹⁸ See Devarim 9:14

¹⁹ The Tur, instead suggests that Hashem is saying that if we do our job, Hashem will help as well. Alternatively, he proposes that the nation is obligated to kill Amalek for their actions in Refidim, whereas Hashem will kill them for destroying the Mikdash. [This is based on the assumption that Amalek = Esav = Rome.]

²⁰ Even if the directive was not to be fulfilled in his time, he needs to know the obligations that were to fall on the nation for the future as well.

²¹ This is evident from the previous story where the nation tests Hashem and complains about lack of water.

²² 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.

²³ Unlike the first approach above, though, he does not stress the immorality of the action.