The Torah commands that the evil of the tribe of Amalek continues to be remembered and the tribe annihilated. This tribe no longer exists. Is this command and its remembrance, therefore, an historical curiosity or does it still have relevance? Moreover, if it does have relevance, should it be accompanied by hate? Judaism is, after all, a religion of love – love of one’s neighbor, love of a stranger, and even consideration for one’s enemies (Exodus 23:4-5).

​

First some details about the attack of Amalek, mentioned twice in the Torah.

 

The first time is in the book of Exodus. The Children of Israel are making their way from Egypt to participate in the covenant at Mount Sinai. Close to Mount Sinai, at Rephidim, they are subject to an unprovoked attack from the tribe of Amalek, which is successfully repelled. The command to obliterate the tribe of Amalek follows directly from this attack:

​

Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim. Moses said to Joshua, “Pick some troops for us, and go out and do battle with Amalek. Tomorrow, I will station myself on the top of the hill, with the rod of God in my hand.” Joshua did as Moses told him and fought with Amalek, while Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. Then, whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed; but whenever he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. But Moses’ hands grew heavy; so they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it, while Aaron and Hur, one on each side, supported his hands; thus his hands remained steady until the sun set. And Joshua overwhelmed the people of Amalek with the sword. Then YHWH said to Moses, “Inscribe this in a document as a reminder, and read it aloud to Joshua: I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven!” And Moses built an altar and named it Hashem-nissi (YHWH is my banner). And he said: “A hand is upon the throne of YHWH (i.e., I am making an oath), YHWH will be at war with Amalek in every generation” (Exodus 17:2-16).

 

In a speech made to the new generation about to enter Canaan and which forms the bulk of the book of Deuteronomy, Moses adjures them to annihilate Amalek. This passage complements the account in Exodus: 

 

Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt. He chanced on you on the way, and he killed among you all the weaklings at your rear, when you were faint and exhausted, and he did not fear Elohim. Therefore, when YHWH your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that YHWH your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget! (Deuteronomy 25:17-19).

 

Moses’ comment in Exodus that “YHWH will be at war with Amalek in every generation” seems to imply that the war against Amalek is God’s war and He will take care of it. The passage from Deuteronomy dispels that notion. The war against Amalek is an Israelite war and they are ones directed to combat this nation.

​

It needs be stated at the outset that there is no explicit command in the Torah to hate Amalek. This is no doubt why Maimonides explains in his influential book Sefer HaMitzvot, which is a book about Torah commands, explains that Israel is commanded to remember the evil actions of Amalek and destroy them, but mentions nothing about hating them.1 Similarly, in his Mishneh Torah he talks about to “arouse enmity (eioso)” towards Amalek, but again says nothing about hate.2 Eivo in Hebrew means hostility or opposition, but not necessarily emotional hatred.

 

The Sefer HaChinuch is a popular book about the reasons for the Torah commands, which often bases itself on Maimonides’ writings. The author is far more explicit about hatred. The author states “but the reason for remembering what Amalek did is only that hatred for him (sinoso) should not be forgotten from our heart.”3 His opinion regarding hatred is supported by a midrash which similarly talks about not forgetting one’s “hatred” towards Amalek.4

 

Hate is an emotion. Maimonides would seem to feel that this command can be accomplished without an emotive aspect. The Sefer HaChinuch, on the other hand, feels that it is impossible to remember the evil of this tribe without having the emotion of hate.

​

It is worth recalling that God Himself is not infrequently God called a jealous or zealous God (El kanno).5 The basis of Jewish ethics is the imitation of God. Nevertheless, commentators such as Sforno point out that God’s vengeance is within a moral and legal context and is justice not passion.6

However, the tribe of Amalek no longer exists today and has not existed for thousands of years. Therefore, there is no longer a command to obliterate this tribe. Does this mean that hatred is no longer part of Judaism? 

 

 

Who were the tribe of Amalek?

 

The Amalekites were a nomadic tribe living in the Negev, south of the border of Canaan. This is apparent from a number of Biblical verses. When the Israelites arrived at the Wilderness of Paran at Kadesh in the Negev, spies were sent out to survey the land of Canaan and Amalek is described as “dwelling in the land of the south” (Numbers 13:29). Later, the Israelites attempted to penetrate Canaan from this location in the Negev against Moses’ advice following the sin of the spies: “The Amalekite and the Canaanite who dwelled on the mountain descended, struck them and pounded them until they were destroyed.” (Numbers 14:45).   

 

The area of habitation of the Amalekites may have been much greater than this. In Samuel I, Saul is described as smiting Amalek “From Havila until you come to Shur, east of Egypt“ (I Samuel 15:7). Both Havila and Shur are close to Egypt.1 Hence, when the Israelites left Egypt “Moses caused Israel to journey from the Sea of Reeds, and they went out to the Wilderness of Shur” (Exodus 15:22). It is likely, therefore, that the habitation of Amalek encompassed not only the Negev but also parts of the Sinai Peninsula extending towards Egypt. 

​

The Amalekites were a war-like people who preyed on travelers on the main trade routes in the Sinai Peninsula and Negev. They avoided frontal attacks in which they could suffer casualties. Hence Deuteronomy relates “and he [Amalek] killed among you all the weaklings at your rear, when you were faint and exhausted, and he did not fear Elohim.” (Deuteronomy 25:18)  

 

They recognized no moral authority, which is why the Bible says “he did not fear Elohim.” (Deuteronomy 25:18). Violence was part of their way of life. In modern parlance — they were terrorists.

 

Nachmanides suggests that Amalek went out of their way to find the Israelites and attack them, despite the fear of the other nations.7 However, there is no support for this in the Torah and it is just as likely that this was a chance encounter. The account in Deuteronomy states specifically that the Amalekites “chanced” upon the Israelite camp, using the Hebrew word “korcho,” which means “chanced upon you” or “happened upon you.” 

 

The Amalekites continued to be a threat to Israel during the time of the Judges and they took part in a number of alliances against Israel. They allied with Eglon king of Moab after the death of Othniel son of Kenz (Judges 3:13) and with Midian after the time of Deborah (Judges 6:3). This particular alliance led to widespread destruction in Israel. They also fought together with Midian against the judge Gideon, albeit unsuccessfully (Judges 6:33). 

 

The book of Samuel mentions specifically that their border raiding and disruption of trade in Sinai was a threat to the Israelite kingdom during the time of the monarchy:

​

And he [ Saul] gathered an army, and he smote Amalek, and he saved Israel from the hand of its plunderer (I Samuel 14:48).

 

The warlike nature of Agag king of the Amalekites is also mentioned by the prophet Samuel as he is about to kill him:

As your sword bereaved women, so will your mother be bereaved among women’. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before YHWH in Gilgal (i Samuel 15:33).

 

But was this really a chance encounter?

​

The description of Amalek’s attack described in Deuteronomy could imply that this was entirely a chance encounter. The Amalekites came across stragglers from the Israelite camp and did what they specialized in doing, which was attacking the weak and defenseless. However, Rashi, based on midrashim, sees a connection between the previous story in the Torah and that of the Amalekite attack, both of which took place in Rephidim.8

​

The people had complained bitterly to Moses of a lack of water to the point that they were almost ready to stone Moses. They also questioned whether God was still in their midst. As the Torah states, the place was subsequently called Massah U’meriva “because of the contention of the Children of Israel and because of their tests of YHWH, saying ‘Is YHWH in our midst or not?’” (Exodus 17:7). Their thirst was relieved when Moses struck a rock with his rod at God’s command and water gushed out from the rock (ibid 17:1-7). Rashi points out that Amalek’s attack was directly related to the people’s questioning God’s involvement.

I

n support of this, the word “Amalek” appears seven times in the Exodus passage at the beginning of this essay (Exodus 17:2-16) and functions as a keyword. The sevenfold repetition implies the involvement of God. The appearance of Amalek was not fortuitous but was orchestrated by God. Amalek was repulsed and the people would come to the realization that victory was only achieved because God was indeed in their midst.  

 

The Amalek story presents a not uncommon pattern in the Torah. On the one hand, God permitted, or even arranged, for Amalek to appear. On the other, He facilitated Israel’s victory over Amalek when the Jewish people directed their hearts to Him. Another classic example is when God prophesied to Abraham that his offspring would be exiled in Egypt, but also promised that He would bring them out (Genesis 15:13). In all these instances, the duality is meant to impart a fundamental educational message.

 

Moses’ hands

 

The people ask at Rephidim – is God truly with us? God demonstrates that He is very much with the Jewish people by assisting Joshua in his fight against Amalek. However, this assistance is no longer at the miraculous level as it was in Egypt during the Ten Plagues and the splitting of the Reed Sea. An appreciation of the role of Moses’ staff helps provide insight into the transition between the miraculous events accompanying the Exodus and the more natural post-Exodus events that followed in the desert.9

 

At least half of the miracles that occurred in Egypt during the Ten Plagues were related to Moses’ staff. At the Reed Sea, also, God commanded Moses to stretch his staff over the water so it would part: 

​

Moses said to the people: “ . . .  YHWH will do battle on your behalf, and you shall remain silent.”  And YHWH said to Moses: “. . . And you – lift up your staff and stretch out your arms over the sea and split it. . . . ’ (Exodus 17:14-16).

 

The Ten Plagues demonstrated to Israel, and also the Egyptians, God’s complete control over all aspects of nature and His ability to control the natural world. During Moses’ strife with the people at Rephidim regarding a lack of water, Moses was told to hit the rock with his staff so that water would issue forth (Exodus 17:6). In all these instances, Moses’ staff functioned as a manifestation of God’s power to manipulate the forces of nature.

 

It was logical, therefore, that when confronted with the challenge of Amalek’s attack, Moses’ first thought would be to fetch his staff: 

 

And Moses said unto Joshua: “Choose men for us, and go out, do battle with Amalek; tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the staff of Elohim in my hand” (Exodus 17:9). 

 

However, at no time did Moses receive a specific command to raise his staff. He may not even have used it all. Rather, he soon found that just raising his hands led Israel to prevail, while lowering his hands favored Amalek. His staff had become irrelevant.10 

​

The Amalek story consists of nine verses. The first three describe Amalek’s attack and Moses’ preparations for war (ibid 17:8-10). The final three sentences describe God’s reaction to the battle and His oath to wage a perpetual fight against this tribe. The middle three sentences detail the battle. Reviewing these middle verses again:

 

And it came to pass that when Moses held up his hand that Israel prevailed; and when he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed. But Moses' hands were heavy; so they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat on it; and Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on this side, and one on that side; and he was with his hands in faith (literally: and he was his hands faith) until the setting of the sun. And Joshua weakened Amalek and its people with the edge of the sword.” (Exodus 17:11-13) 

 

The question is an obvious one. How was it possible for Moses’ hands to influence the battle?  This is the answer of Mishna Rosh Hashanah:

 

Was it Moses hands that won the battle or lost the battle? Rather, as long as Israel looked heavenward and subjected their heart to their Father in heaven, they would prevail; but when they did not, they would fall.11

God would continue to fight for them, just as He did at the Reed Sea; but overt miracles will now be the exception rather than the rule. From now on, the Israelites will need to fight to acquire the land of Canaan and its conquest will be accomplished primarily by natural means — although the battle of Jericho seems to have been an exception.

 

Nevertheless, there were two prerequisites for God’s assistance with this battle. One was that the Jewish people recognize God as being responsible for its outcome. The second is that their hearts be directed and subjected to God. This is evident in a number of ways from the text.

​

• Moses goes to the “to the top of the hill” so that his hands raised heavenwards can be seen by all the Israelite fighters.

 

• The battle is fought “on the morrow” — during daylight.

 

• The verse continues: “. . . and he was with his hands in faith (emuna)” (ibid 17:12).

 

This is a difficult phrase to translate. Literally, it reads “and his hands were faith.” Nachmanides translates it as “and his hands remained firm until sunset.”12 Rashi, though, sees in this phrase Moses’ appreciation that his hands were expressing faith.13  

 

• The connection between the people and God needs to be acknowledged communally as well as individually. Hence, Moses as the religious leader, Aaron as the future representative of the priests, and Hur of the tribe of Judah, the tribe that will eventually become the political leader of the Israelite nation, stand together on top of the mountain to assist Moses in elevating his hands. 

 

• By raising his hands, Moses is pointing to the two-way connection between heaven and earth in influencing the affairs of the Jewish people.

 

• The literary format of the story draws attention to the importance of Moses’ hands in determining the outcome of this battle. The word “hand” is mentioned seven times in this passage as a keyword. The first six mentions relate to the hands of Moses, and the seventh relates to the hand of God:

 

It was the practice in the ancient world to accompany an oath with a physical action. Hence, Abraham swore to the king of Sodom “I have raised my hand to YHWH ….  If I shall take anything that is yours.” (Genesis 14:22). Eliezer, Abraham’s servant, placed his hand under Abraham’s thigh when promising to keep to the conditions for his finding a wife for Isaac in Aram Naharaim (Genesis 24:9). God now raises His hand to His throne that He will be at perpetual war against Amalek. Moreover, just as Moses raised his hands during the battle in acknowledging the presence of God, so did God raise His hands in acknowledging the Jewish people and their need for protection from the forces of Amalek:

 

And YHWH said unto Moses: “Write this for a memorial in the Book, and recite it in the ears of Joshua, because I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under the heavens.” And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it “YHWH is my Banner.” And he said: “For there is a hand upon the throne of God: YHWH will have war with Amalek from generation to generation” (Exodus 17:14-16).

 

Moses commemorated the victory by building an altar to God: "And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it 'YHWH is my Banner.'” (Exodus 17:15)

 

A banner is also held aloft — as Moses’ hands had been. The name of this altar will be relevant not only with respect to this battle but for all of Israel’s future battles. The miracles of the Exodus with their frequent involvement of Moses’ staff are past history. But this is not the end of God’s engagement in Israel’s military struggles. 

  

 

The command to obliterate Amalek

​

God will wage war against Amalek from generation to generation, but it will be the role of the Jewish people to blot out their memory. The Torah considered this to be of sufficient importance to be included as an integral part of the Torah. 

​

The reason for this is “that he [Amalek] did not fear God” (Deuteronomy 25:18). Following the Exodus, God’s reputation in bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, particularly the destruction of the Egyptian army at the Reed Sea had spread throughout the Middle East. Despite this, Amalek had no inhibitions about attacking the Israelites.14

 

But the world is full of people and nations who do not fear God! There must be more to it than just this.

Nachmanides focuses more on the evil of Amalek: 

 

Whereas all the nations “heard and were agitated” and Philistia, Edom, Moab and “all the dwellers of Canaan dissolved” “because of the fear of God and glory of His greatness,” yet Amalek came from afar and brazenly acted as one who would attempt to overcome God. It is for this reason Scripture said about Amalek: “and he did not fear God.”15

​

Judaism is not only about bringing goodness into the world, but also about eradicating evil. Judaism cannot destroy all evil in the world. That is God’s job. But evil has a habit of seeking out the Jews. It is almost as if Nazis and fundamental Muslims know that Judaism is the main opposition to its ideas. Moreover, if a nation, people or race seek the genocide of the Jews, this is also an attack against God, since the Jews are His people. When Israel is powerless, as it has been for over 2,000 years, then God has no option but to take care of this Himself. But when Israel is not powerless, as is the situation today, then Israel becomes a partner with God in eradicating the evil arrayed against it.

 

Jewish tradition ensures that this admonition is not overlooked. There is a redundancy in the passage from Deuteronomy:

 

Remember what Amalek did to you on the way, when you were leaving Egypt, that he happened upon you on the way . . . . It shall be that when YHWH your God gives you rest from all your enemies around, in the land that YHWH your God gives you as an inheritance to take possession, you shall wipe out the remembrance of Amalek from under the heaven — you shall not forget (Deuteronomy 25:17-19).    

 

Why does the Torah add “you shall not forget” at the end of the above passage? Clearly, if there is remembrance there is no forgetting.

 

One possibility is that “you shall not forget” is linked to the preceding phrase regarding annihilating Amalek – hence do “not forget” to destroy them. Alternatively, there is a poetic format to this passage with the end of the paragraph emphasizing that which what was stated at the beginning — “Remember what Amalek did to you” …  and “do not forget.”  

​

However, Jewish tradition understood this paragraph differently. “Remember” means to verbalize the command not to forget what Amalek did. The phrase “you shall not forget” means to internalize the command to remember.16 For this reason, this passage is read aloud once a year in the synagogue. 

In sum — the Jewish people are to hate Amalek and make a declaration of this hatred at least once a year so that it remains embedded in their memory. They are also to internalize it, and in biblical times to eventually bring this hatred to its inevitable conclusion by preemptively obliterating the memory of this people.

 

 

The massacre of Amalek

 

To the modern mind the words of the Bible could well grate: 

​

You shall wipe out the remembrance of Amalek from under the heaven — you shall not forget (Deuteronomy 25:19).

 

Amalek perpetrated war crimes. Now you also should commit a war crime by annihilating them. Does one war crime really excuse another? The Human Rights Council of the United Nations would have a heyday with this (especially if it involves Jews!)

​

The actualization of the directive to obliterate the memory of the Amalekites was attempted in the days of the prophet Samuel. The Jewish nation had achieved a degree of stability under King Saul.  One battle had already been fought against Amalek (I Samuel 15:3), and it was now time to deal with the Amalekites as adjured by the Bible: 

​

And Samuel said to Saul: “. . . So said the Lord of Hosts: ‘I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, what he did to him on the way, when he came up out of Egypt. Now go and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him; and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass’” (1 Samuel 15:1-3). 

 

A discussion about the morality of massacring the people of Amalek, and especially the killing of their animals, is found in the following midrash:

 

Saul came to the city of Amalek . . . The Rabbis taught that he began to question God’s command: “Master of the universe, so Samuel said to me: ‘Go and smite Amalek and destroy them completely. . .. A person may sin, but how can an animal be guilty?’” A heavenly voice declared: “Do not be overly righteous — more than your Creator.’17 

​

It is a poignant question. God is the yardstick for justice and mercy. How can He perpetrate revenge on Amalek to the extent of annihilating the tribe and everything belonging to them?

 

Yet it is precisely the killing of Amalek’s animals that provides an understanding of the Bible.

 

The ancient world would have had no trouble in empathizing with the Bible’s command to destroy Amalek. Massacring one’s foes and taking their women and property as booty were commonplace in warfare. However, this was not how the Amalekites were to be treated. None of their property was to be taken. All were to be annihilated, including the women, children and animals. This was a marked departure from the practices of that time.

​

This type of massacre is not an isolated directive. If a Jewish city after careful investigation has been found to practice idolatry, the Bible commands as follows: 

 

You shall surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword; lay it waste and everything that is in it, and its animals, with the edge of the sword. You shall gather together all its booty to the midst of its open square, and you shall burn by fire completely the city and all its booty to YHWH your God, and it shall be an eternal heap, it shall not be rebuilt (Deuteronomy 13:17).

 

Jewish tradition tells us that this type of punishment has never been applied.18 Nevertheless, the Torah recognizes that it appears cruel and lacking in mercy, and addresses this objection: 

 

No part of the banned property (cherem) may adhere to your hand, so that YHWH will turn back from His burning wrath; and He will give you mercy and be merciful to you and multiply you, as He swore to your forefathers (Deuteronomy 13:19).

 

It is doubtful that there is any other textual source in history in which those about to perpetrate a massacre are promised reward with mercy for participating in it! 

 

In some way this city becomes dedicated to God. Its status in the Bible is known as being in “cherem” or being “banned property,” and as such no benefit may be obtained from it.

Jericho, after being captured by Joshua, was placed in a state of cherem and dedicated to God: 

 

And they burned the city and everything in it with fire. Only the silver, gold and vessels of copper and iron they gave to the treasury of the house of YHWH. . .  And Joshua swore at that time: “Cursed be the person before YHWH who rises and builds this city, Jericho. With his oldest son he will lay its foundation and with his youngest son he will set up the gates” (Joshua 6:24-26).

 

Similarly, at the time of Samuel, the people and property of Amalek were placed in cherem and dedicated in their entirety to God. However, following the wishes of his soldiers, King Saul let Agag the king of the Amalekites live, probably for a public execution, and also the best of the sheep which were designated for sacrifices to God. This was contrary to Samuel’s instructions and Saul was severely punished for it.

​

It is possible to extrapolate the midrash’s comment to Saul: “Do not be overly righteous — more than your Creator” as follows: 

​

 I, God, am the measure of mercy. Do not try to outdo Me on this. The tribe of Amalek no longer warrants My mercy because of what it has done in the past and what it will continue to do to you in the future if not prevented. Because it is evil, it is now dedicated to Me. Be accepting of this — for this is My decree.

 

The new Amalekites

​

There is an obvious contradiction in the Torah regarding God’s conflict with Amalek. God commands the annihilation of Amalek. But He also promises He will be at war with Amalek “from generation to generation.” If the Jewish people succeed in destroying Amalek, against whom will He wage war?

 

It is not as if this will be an unsuccessful annihilation. The Torah does foresee Amalek’s total destruction. The Book of Numbers relates a prophecy made by the non-Jewish prophet Balaam:

Then he looked on Amalek and took up his discourse and said: “Amalek was the first among the nations, but its end is utter destruction” (Numbers 24:20).  

 

The annihilation of Amalek was mainly achieved by King Saul, who succeeded in decimating the tribe: 

 

He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword (1 Samuel 1:15).

 

Further raids were carried out by David when living under the protection of the Philistines of Gath and their king Achish from King Saul (although these raids do not appear to have had any theological significance as David kept the animals for his own use). In fact, David was protecting the southern border of Judah, while deceiving the king of Gath that he was working to his benefit: 

 

Now David and his men went up and made raids against the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites, for these were the inhabitants of the land of old, as far as Shur, even to the land of Egypt. And David would strike the land and would leave neither man nor woman alive, but would take away the sheep, the oxen, the donkeys, the camels, and the garments, and come back to Achish (1 Samuel 27:8-9).

 

Finally, the Book of Chronicles relates that the last remnant of Amalek was destroyed during the reign of Hezekiah:

​

And of them five hundred men of the children of Simeon went to Mount Seir, and Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi at their head. And they smote the remnant of Amalekites that had escaped, and they [the children of Simeon] have lived there to this day. (1 Chronicles 4:42–43).

 

Given all these massacres, it seems unlikely that Amalek remained as a viable entity, although it is conceivable that some members of the tribe escaped. Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the villain of the Book of Esther and the Purim story, is considered by Jewish tradition to have been an Amalekite.19 If so, his forebears may have been escapees.

 

So, the question remains. How can God wage a perpetual war against a people that no longer exists?  

 

The most common answer is that Amalek is not only a tribe, but also a concept. God promises to wage war against people or nations that embody the evil of the now-destroyed Amalek.

 

Concerning the relevant passage in the Book of Exodus at the beginning of this essay R’ Joseph Soloveitchik wrote (Exodus 17:2-16):

 

Amalek or man-Satan is the enemy of man, and enjoys causing misery and injury to all people. Yet, Amalek is particularly preoccupied with the Jew. He hates the Jew more than anyone else. . . . No matter what economic-sociopolitical program man-Satan adopts — socialist, capitalist, fascist, progressive, reactionary, agnostic-secular, or religious clerical — the hatred of the Jew is his central preoccupation. . . . This experience is not restricted to Diaspora Jewry as secular Zionism would have us think. It is an integral part of the Jewish experience, a universal, all-inclusive experience. For our enemies, the problem of the State of Israel is not only of the existence of a political institution. The desire of Arab radicals is to destroy both the state and its population.20

 

And about the previously quoted passage from the book of Deuteronomy at the beginning of this essay he said (Deuteronomy 25:17-19):  

 

The fight against Amalek is a fight against those who embody hatred, cruelty, and opposition to the sanctity of human life. This is not merely a physical war, but a spiritual battle that endures in every generation.21

 

Amalek-like characteristics would include the following:

​

• Belief in violence as almost a creed.

• Exhibiting a pathological hatred of the Jewish people.

• Attempting genocide of the Jewish people.

 

It has been pointed out that based on R’ Soloveitchik’s writings there are two aspects to the command regarding Amalek. One is to wipe out Amalek’s memory. This is an individual obligation and it no longer applies since all of Amalek’s descendants have been destroyed. However, there remains a communal obligation to wage war against the evil typified by Amalek and this is still very relevant.22

 

A relevant question is whether this communal obligation can, or should be, accompanied by hatred.

 

Rav Kook transforms the idea of hatred of Amalek into a spiritual hatred of evil itself, and not of people. He writes:

 

Hatred must be directed only towards evil, not toward the person. . . Such hatred should arise only for the sake of the world’s rectification.23

​

Rav Soloveitchik also appears to see the response to the representative evil of Amalek as being a moral outrage against radical evil, rather than hate per se of individuals.

 

In conclusion, I would like to suggest that the approach to the modern-day Amalek should not be just moral outrage (as perhaps Rav Joseph Soloveitchik seems to suggest), but emotional hatred, or at least the leaders of our enemies. Hate has a crucial function within Judaism. As a religion of love, one may naively assume that Judaism deals with the whole world on the basis of love. The Torah portions on Amalek tell us that this is not the case. In very circumscribed circumstances, hate is legitimate, and may even be essential. It then becomes the task of the Jewish people to attempt to eradicate this evil, because evil against us is also against the values of God. It is also the case that societal evil has a tendency to home in on the Jewish people. This is probably because the perpetrators of evil perceive Judaism, rightly so, as being their main adversary in terms of societal values.

 

It is interesting to compare how other monotheistic religions have dealt with the topic of hate. Based on the nature of God, Christianity is a religion centered on love as being the essence of all reality and morality.24 However, more often than not Christianity has found this impractical when dealing with its enemies and love goes by the wayside. This has certainly been the case with respect to the anti-Jewish activities of the Church.

 

Our problem with Islam is exactly the opposite. The Qur’an and Hadith repeatedly describe God’s love for righteous people, and call on Muslims to cultivate love, compassion, and mercy toward others.25 Yet much of the Islamic world is currently consumed with hate towards Jews. This hatred is directed towards preserving a messianic vision of the superiority of Islam in both this world and the next. The genocidal intent of Hamas is a direct assault on the values and well-being of the Jewish people and hence is against God Himself. Because of this, jihadist organizations must eventually be destroyed. It is unrealistic to assume that this will happen overnight, but it has to be a long-term goal. It is also quite legitimate to hate their leaders and their soldiers, although not the entire Palestinian people.

The circumstances in which hate can be used in Judaism are very specific, but are an essential part of Judaism.

 

References

​

1. Sefer HaMitzvot of Maimonides, positive command 189. 

2. In his Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim u’Milchamot 5:5 he writes: “It is a positive commandment to destroy the memory of Amalek, as [Deuteronomy 25:19] states: “Obliterate the memory of Amalek”’ It is a positive commandment to always remember his evil deeds and their ambush [of Israel], in order to arouse enmity (eivoso) toward him, as it states: [ibid 17]: ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’”

3. Sefer HaChinuch,603. The religious duty to remember what Amalek did to the Israelites when they came out of Egypt.

4. Sifrei Deut. 296. 

5. Exodus 20:5 (in the Ten Commandments): “You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, YHWH your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the . .; Deuteronomy 4:24: “For YHWH your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God;” Deuteronomy 5:9: (repetition of Exodus 20:5); and Deuteronomy 6:15.

6. Sforno to Exodus 34:14. 

7. Commentary of Nachmanides to Genesis 2:11.

8. Commentary of Rashi on Exodus 17:8 based on Tanchuma Yithro 3 and Shemos Rabbah 26:2.

9. See “Do the hands of Moses wage war? By Rav Mordechai Sabato in Torah Metzion. New Readings in Tanach. Shemot. P211, Maggid Books, a division of Koren Publishers, CT, USA 2012.

10. Nachmanides in his commentary to Exodus 7:19 sees the use of the staff as an initial step to bring upon the Amalekites “strikes of plague, sword and annihilation”.  Joshua also used his spear for this function when attacking Ai (Joshua 8:18). Thereafter, his hands needed to be free.

11. Mishnah Rosh Hashona 3:8. 

12. Nachmanides, Commentary to the Torah on Exodus 17:12.

13. Rashi on Exodus 17:12. 

14. Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:18.

15. Nachmanides on Exodus 17:16. Also Fourth Paragraph. The War with Amalek in A Commentary on the Book of Exodus by Umberto Moshe David Cassuto, p204, Varda Books, Skokie, IL, USA 2005.

16. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim U’Milchamoteihem 5:5. Also Maimonides, Sefer Hamitzvot, Negative Commandment 59 and Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzva 605. Based on TB Megillah 18a

17. Midrash Kohelet Zuta, parsha 7.

18. Mishna Sanhedrin 10:4, TB Sanhedrin 71a-72a explains that the Torah’s conditions are so restrictive as to make fulfillment impossible: It applies only if the majority of the inhabitants worship idols. The seducers must be from the same tribe. The city must be within the Land of Israel and not located on the border (so as not to endanger national security). The property must be destroyed, but not that of righteous individuals in other places. Rashi explains that the verse and halakhah are written so as to teach the gravity of idolatry but not for actual implementation.

19. There is a tradition that the Haman of the Purim story was a descendent of Agag the king of the Amalekites (TB Megilla 13a, Targum Sheni on Esther 3:1), and this accounts for his hatred of the Jews (Midrash Tanchuma (Ki Tetze 9) and Yalkut Shimoni (Esther 1054).

20. The Neuwirth Edition. Chumash Mesora Harav. Sefer Shemos, with commentary based upon the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, compiled and edited by Dr. Arnold Lustiger. Commentary on “Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim” Exodus 17:8., p140. OU Press, New York, NY 2014. This passage, last published in 2014, in particular its ending, is quite prescient.

21. This quotation is widely known, but I am unable to locate its source.

22. See also “Rav Soloveitchik on Amalek: Peshat or Derach?” In Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2007/02/rav-soloveitchik-on-amalek-peshat-or/5.Rav

23. Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, Orot HaKodesh III, p. 326 and Orot HaTeshuvah 9:

24. The notion that Christianity is a religion of love comes directly from the New Testament, especially from the writings of John: “God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” (1 John 4:8, 16). In the Gospels, Jesus summarizes the entire Torah in two commandments: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Deuteronomy 6:5, quoted in Matthew 22:37) and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Leviticus 19:18, quoted in Matthew 22:39). Matthew then adds: “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:40). The central principle of Jesus’ moral vision, inherited from the Torah, is love of God, of fellow human beings, and even of one’s enemies: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44). Jesus tells his followers: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35).

25. “Do not let the hatred of a people cause you to act unjustly. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.” (Qur’an 5:8). “You will not enter Paradise until you have faith, and you will not have faith until you love one another” (Saḥīḥ Muslim 54). Muhammad also believed in universal love as a reflection of God’s mercy: “The Merciful One shows mercy to those who are merciful. Be merciful to those on the earth, and the One in Heaven will be merciful to you” (Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1924).