Those who live by the sword: the ideology of Amalek

The shocking news coming out of Ukraine in recent days has prompted me to bring forward a post that I had been planning for parashat Zachor, when we recall the need to stamp out any memory of Amalek and their ideology. How does the commandment to wipe out the memory of Amalek present itself in the current era?

Judaism Reclaimed approaches the subject mindful of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s teaching in Kol Dodi Dofek, that the Torah’s treatment of Amalek refers not only to those biologically descended from the nation which attacked the Jews in the desert. It also encompasses an ideology of evil. While the command to destroy individuals from that nation has not been practically applicable for most of Jewish history, there remains a powerful principle to confront and “blot out” the evil ideology that Amalek represented.

In terms of defining what Amalek’s beliefs consisted off, we turn to the comments of Rabbi S. R. Hirsch:

“Amalek alone did not fear God. Amalek alone was heir to that spirit that chooses the sword as its lot, seeks renown in laurels of blood, and strives to realise the ambition of “Let us make for ourselves a name” with which Nimrod began world history. This ambition is realised by destroying the welfare of nations and the happiness of men.

This seeking renown by the force of arms is the first and last enemy of human happiness and Divine Kingship on earth…Amalek’s glory-seeking sword knows no rest as long as one free man’s heart keeps beating and pays no homage to it; as long as one modest abode and happy home remains standing whose residents do not tremble before its might.”

Judaism Reclaimed discusses a more recent example of how this Amalekite ideology has presented itself in more recent times.

Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf drew heavily upon Nietzsche’s theory of a ‘master race’ (ubermensch) whose rightful ‘heroic’ status was being compromised by the ‘slave morality’ of those who idealise acts of kindness and mercy towards others (identified as Jews and those influenced by ‘Jewish morality’). Hitler built further upon Nietzsche’s principle, identifying Germans as a frustrated Aryan master race which, possessed with master morality, would dominate the world. It was, he claimed, the Jews’ perpetuation of the slave morality to serve the weak (spread via the church, democracy and western civilization) that compromised the master race’s entitlement to dominate humanity.

The politicisation of this appropriation of Nietzsche’s philosophy earmarked the Jews as the primary enemy of Nazi Germany, and as a target for elimination in a warped attempt to influence Darwinian natural selection. Hitler’s political theory of the entitlement of the powerful to dominate the weak strongly resembles the ideology attributed by Rav Hirsch to Amalek and why Amalek is deemed an eternal ideological opponent of the Jews.

These are important ideas to keep in mind as we monitor current world events and contemplate the commandment to blot of the memory of Amalek that we read in a couple of weeks.

First posted to Facebook 27 February 2022, here.

Scholarly speculations and the making of Amalek

By Nissim Bellahsen and Shmuli Phillips

Initially I thought we’d missed the boat for an Amalek post, it being several days since Parashat Zachor was read. But upon further reflection on the quality of scholarship behind the latest offering from thetorah. com, it seemed more fitting to run with it for a Purim post instead.

A story is told of the Dubner Maggid – a rabbi famed for his ability to find a mashal for any given lesson or occasion. The Maggid was once questioned how he managed to be so prolific with his parables. The wise sage explained (with a mashal of course): A man walking in the forest sees a boy not far from a tree with a number of arrows right in middle of the bull's eye. He asks the boy who shot those arrows? "I did" replied the boy. "And how did a boy your age manage to hit the center every time?" "Simple", said the boy, "first I shot the arrows then I painted the target".

An amusing anecdote? Perhaps. But like all good fables, it has a serious message too. In this instance it provides a biting critique of the methodology which appears to have been adopted by many in the field of academic biblical studies, through which they build up entire theories and stories based on the flimsiest of indications in the text.

The scholarly article in question, which seeks to uncover the origin of Amalek’s special biblical status, sees Dr Gili Kugler – a senior lecturer in Bible Studies in the University of Haifa – take this methodology to an extreme. The pre-drawn target for Kugler’s analysis of Amalek can be found at the end of the article: A highly speculative supposition that, since narratives describing military victories of both Saul and David over Amalek are found within twelve chapters of each other, this can only mean that rival groups of scribes must have mischievously manipulated the text. The article can be viewed here: https://www.thetorah.com/article/amalek-a-pawn-in-the-rivalry-between-saul-and-davids-legacy.

THE GRAND THEORY

The two sets of scribal antagonists firmly in place, Kugler now lets her imagination run free. Rather than basing her theory on the text of the two passages in question, she instead superimposes her own theory that the Saul narrative initially praised him for a resounding rout of Amalek. Unfortunately for Saul and his scribes, however, the Davidic scribes had the last laugh, editing the biblical account of his victory so that it shouldn’t upstage David’s later triumph over the same enemy:

“The fact that both David and Saul have a story about how they defeated the Amalekites is no coincidence. Saul and David represent two different dynasties, whose founding figures competed—whether in reality, or in the minds of their later adherents, or both—for the identification and legacy as the founder of the monarchy in Israel.”

“It is probable that YHWH had no role in the older version of Saul’s war against Amalek, before it was reworked by the redactor of 1Samuel 15. I suggest (all or part of) verses 4–9 are the core of the older story, which told how Saul fought against Amalek on his own initiative

But the account of Saul’s defeat of Amalek was then revised to include an introduction, with YHWH specifically telling Saul to proscribe (cherem) all the animals. This made Saul’s not doing so—which would not have been an issue in the core story—a direct violation of YHWH’s command, and allowed for Samuel’s dramatic confrontation of Saul, ending with Saul’s painful humiliation.

MANIPULATING THE EVIDENCE TO MATCH THE THEORY

No evidence of any sort is offered for this rereading of Saul’s battle with Amalek. Two somewhat similar episodes of victory over Amalek within a twelve-chapter distance, coupled with an imagined scribal rivalry, appear to be regarded as a sufficient foundation for her proposed violence to the text. Unfortunately the article continues to deteriorate yet further from this low point.

Kugler recognises that her grand theory faces a challenge. Given the prominent prior appearances of Amalek in the Torah along with the clear command that they be wiped out, she asks, why would the claimed “original version” of the Saul battle not have required him to eradicate the Amalekites? Why would this context need to be subsequently supplemented by Davidic scribes?

In order to resolve this conundrum, Kugler scales new heights of speculation and misrepresentation of the Torah’s text. The initial version of the Torah, she charges, viewed Amalek as just another one of Israel’s enemies to be defeated alongside the Canaanites. In order to make their claimed corruption of the Saul narrative appear convincing, the Davidic scribes then had to turn their scalpels and quills to the text of the Torah itself, effortlessly inserting two passages which consider Amalek the eternal enemies of God and requiring them to be annihilated!

“Historically speaking, the conflict with Amalek was likely nothing out of the ordinary at first, and this is reflected in how they are remembered in many biblical texts, i.e., just another group whom Israel fought with. The decision of the pro-David scribes to turn Saul’s military victory into a religious defeat changed this picture.”

“This command made its way into Exodus, with the oath that war with Amalek would be fought throughout the ages. Deuteronomy, with the account of Amalek’s cruelty in attacking the weak and defenseless first, is a further elaboration of this perspective”

We must remind ourselves at this stage, that the entirebasis for the grand theory that Dr Kugler has concocted is her identification of two broadly similar narratives at a twelve-chapter distance coupled with the rivalry she has imagined there to be between Saulide and Davidic scribes.

In order to support her claim that the two passages requiring Amalek to be eradicated are later additions, Kugler seeks to show that other “non-Davidic” passages do not depict Amalek in this way as Israel’s special enemies. Her citations of the sparse references to Amalek in the book of Bereishit – centuries before Amalek’s attack on Israel took place – are scarcely relevant. She then notes that Amalek are mentioned alongside other Canaanites (receiving no special treatment) in the episode of the spies. It is not clear, however, that every mention Amalek throughout the Tanach is expected to disclose their status as eternal enemies. Particularly in the context of Israel’s campaign to take possession of the Land, a band of cruel cut throats in the Negev deserts do not deserve greater attention than the armies protecting the powerful walled cities.

Finally there is Bilaam’s treatment of Amalek which, according to Kugler, considers them as “just one of several nations that Balaam predicts Israel will crush in the future” and does not recognise them as Israel’s eternal enemies. Yet this claim relies upon a questionable translation of Bilaam’s utterance “reishit goyim Amalek” as “a leading nation is Amalek”. The translation adopted by Onkelos and the vast majority of traditional commentators, however, is “first of nations is Amalek”. This translation is consistent with how the term “reishit” is used elsewhere in the Torah, and is taken by all the commentaries to refer to Amalek’s special status – earned by being the first nation to attack the Israelites in the desert.

While Kugler claims that: “Israelites have other negative encounters but only Amalek become God’s eternal enemies to be wiped out”, we find that the Midianites are practically wiped out for their attempt to obstruct the Israelite’s progress through the desert.

To summarise, there is little if any supporting evidence in the biblical texts for Kluger’s theory that the special enemy status of Amalek as the result of a later scribal rivalry which caused them to drastically edit existing biblical passages.

SNUBBING A SIMPLER SOLUTION

Before freely wielding the scalpel to carve up the Torah’s text, Dr Kugler might have considered the principle of Occum’s Razor which gives preference to simple theories over their more complex counterparts. She mentions in passing that the verse in Devarim explicitly limits the commandment to destroy Amalek to “when the Lord your God grants you respite from all your enemies who surround”. Very simply, this earlier condition explains why Amalek’s special status is not relevant when the Torah describes the initial military campaign to take possession of the Land of Israel, and is certainly inapplicable to David’s battle with Amalek which occurs while he is in exile – taking refuge with the Philistine king, Achish.

Saul, by contrast, having united the nation under his kingship and defeated other enemies, was perfectly placed to receive the divine word to wipe out Amalek. Did Dr Kugler pause to consider whether this single principle – explicitly contained in the Torah’s text – provides a simpler and considerably more convincing account of the Amalek episodes than her complex tale of unmentioned rival scribes having inflicted unseen violence on various biblical passages?

She might also have found a more satisfying theory for why Amalek alone among Israel’s opponents is deemed the eternal enemy of God. While Amalek’s military prowess deserves no special mention alongside the other Canaanite nations whom Israel would battle for the Land, they certainly stand out in the biblical text for their eagerness to cut down the weak and weary at the start of Israel’s journey through the wilderness.

The Song of the Sea recounts how “Peoples heard, they trembled; a shudder seized the inhabitants of Philistia. Then the chieftains of Edom were startled; the powerful of Moab were seized with trembling; all the inhabitants of Canaan melted” – a report which is echoed by Rahab at the start of the book of Joshua. Only Amalek refuses to be in awe of the miraculous progress of the Israelites –instead attacking this newly-freed nation which challenges the Ancient Near Eastern order of oppressed serfs and cruel, immoral pagan rites. Amalek – like Haman the Aggagite [Amalekite] in the Purim story – fundamentally opposes the divinely-ordained mission of the Jews to spread their light and thereby refine and assist the rest of the world.

Based on highly speculative theories such as this one, academics and publishers at theTorah.com similarly seek to deprive both the Jewish people and the wider world of the God’s revealed mission for the Jewish people, and the Torah’s core historical messages of ethical monotheism. In its place they prefer to highlight weak parallels and use them as the basis for a conspiracy of scribal rivalry that QANON would be proud of. A Purim Torah – yes. But one with a very serious message.

First posted on Facebook on 16 March 2022, here.

Blood, Forgiveness and Fundamental Christian Misunderstandings

A regular claim which emerges from missionaries who seek to persuade Jews that our Torah truly reflects their religion centres around the institution of korbanot which we are about to start reading. This claim argues that, since the Torah requires sacrificial blood on the altar in order for a sinner to achieve forgiveness, in the absence of a Mikdash we are left devoid of any means through which to have our sins removed. This then paves the way for the subsequent claim that the blood of their saviour vicariously “paid the blood debt” for our sins and thereby facilitates our forgiveness. 

The Jewish response to this argument allows us to appreciate some of the fundamental differences between Jewish and Christian theologies, and may also help us to understand the true nature of korbanot.

For Christianity, sin creates some form of “debt” which must be repaid – if not through animal sacrifice then by some alternative – “without shedding of blood there can be no atonement” (Hebrews 9:22). The Jewish prophets, by contrast, take a very different approach to the process of divine forgiveness. As we will read from Yeshayah on the upcoming Ta’anit Esther: 

“Let the wicked one reject his path, and the man of iniquity his thoughts, and he shall return to God, Who shall have mercy upon him, and to our God, for He will freely pardon”.

It is highly difficult for us to imagine that the grievous sins which we may commit can be so freely forgiven. Our instinct is to imagine God in our own image and likeness and presume that He too cannot forgive without repayment. To such a theology – which is adopted by Christianity – Yeshayah forcefully responds “for My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts [higher] than your thoughts”. If you return to Me and truly change your ways then your sins will be forgiven. As Jews, we seek to elevate and build ourselves in God’s image by “walking in His ways” rather than lowering Him by attributing our human flaws and frailties to His divine processes. Thus we are taught in Hilchot Teshuva (10:2):

It is forbidden for a person to be cruel and refuse to be appeased. Rather, he should be easily pacified, but hard to anger. When the person who wronged him asks for forgiveness, he should forgive him with a complete heart and a willing spirit. Even if he aggravated and wronged him severely, he should not seek revenge or bear a grudge. This is the path of Israel and their upright spirit.

Rather than a form of appeasement or repayment of a ”sin debt”, korbanot are better understood as a means through which “lehakriv” – we come closer to God. Judaism Reclaimed develops this idea further based on the teachings of Rabbi S. R. Hirsch and the Kuzari, who explain (based on a Talmudic teaching) how each corner of the altar symbolized a different aspect of a person’s relationship with God which might have been harmed through sin. Crucially, it is only “careless” sinning – based on an overall weakening of our relationship with God – which is repaired through a korban.

There is a fascinating flip-side to this Jewish-Christian divide on the subject of forgiveness of true evil, which relates to the need to forgive all people – even those who are thoroughly evil and whose repentance is questionable or even completely absent. With the “blood debt” of sin now believed to be forgiven vicariously and automatically for all of humanity, the lines between good and evil now begin to get blurred.

A famous article by Simon Wiesenthal describes how he could not bring himself to forgive – on behalf of all Jews – a concentration camp guard who had admitted to involvement in the torture and murder of thousands of Jews. All Christians he subsequently discussed this with thought this unwillingness to forgive to be wrong and ungodly whereas Jews agreed with his decision to refuse forgiveness to this guard, who lay on his deathbed fearing imminent divine retribution.

In contrast to the Christian approach which emphasises universal forgiveness, the paradigm of evil in the Torah is represented by Amalek – a nation which the Torah instructs must be eternally recalled and opposed. In his commentary on the Torah, Rabbi S. R. Hirsch understands the Amalekite ideology and ethos to be the antithesis of Jewish morality. When the nation who embodies the Torah’s moral and spiritual values took its first step in history, Amalek rushed to “massacre your stragglers, all those who trailed after you when you were faint and weary”.

We are tragically only too aware of the evil of an ideology which takes delight in torturing and massacring those who are weak and defenseless. As opposed to the Pope, and nations who have absorbed the Christian value of forgiving and reconciling with evil, Judaism maintains powerfully that “ohavei Hashem sinu ra - those who love God despise evil”.

Parashat Zachor, which we will mark this coming Shabbat, reinforces the message that the ideal society which God wishes us to build will only be possible once the “memory of Amalek” – with its values of death, destruction and oppression – are removed from humanity

First posted on Facebook 17 March 2024, here.

A time to forgive, a time to refrain from forgiving: the Jewish

“As a concentration camp prisoner, the monotony of his work detail is suddenly broken when he is brought to the bedside of a dying Nazi. The German delineates the gruesome details of his career, describing how he participated in the murder and torture of hundreds of Jews…explains that he sought a Jew from whom to beseech forgiveness. Wiesenthal silently contemplates the wretched creature lying before him, and then, unable to comply but unable to condemn, walks out of the room…all the Jewish respondents thought Simon Wiesenthal was right in not forgiving the repentant Nazi mass murderer, and the Christians thought he was wrong.”

The above excerpt from Simon Wiesenthal’s The Sunflower is particularly poignant in a week which sees heads of state from across the world arriving in Jerusalem to mark 75 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. (herehere). 

While I don’t consider myself to be consumed by religious extremism or hatred, this fascinating article brought home to me that Judaism accepts and even requires the identification and hatred of evil. Those of us who have grown up or are currently living in countries influenced by Christian thought may instinctively find ourselves contrasting this Jewish concept with the fundamental Christian teaching that all people, no matter how evil, are worthy of love and forgiveness. The article vividly depicts how this contrast is viewed from the Christian perspective:

“A Catholic nun who is struck by the hatred Israelis bear for their enemies, Johanna, tells of an Israeli Hebrew teacher “who was very close to us. She told us how her young son hates Saddam... She said it with such enthusiasm. She was so proud of her son.” “I realized,” Johanna concluded, “that hatred is in the Jewish religion.” She was right. When Queen Esther had already visited defeat upon Haman—the Hitler of his time, attempted exterminator of the Jewish people—and had killed Haman’s supporters and sons, King Ahasuerus asks what more she could possible want…Esther said, “If it pleases the king . . . let the ten sons of Haman be hanged on the gallows.”

Can we identify a religious principle which underpins this required hatred?

The paradigm of evil in the Torah is represented by Amalek – a nation which the Torah instructs must be eternally recalled and opposed. In his commentary on the Torah, Rabbi S. R. Hirsch understands the Amalekite ideology and ethos to be the antithesis of Jewish morality. Amalek does not hate nations that are its equal in power and armament, but rather regards their military preparedness as a sign of respect for their sword. Amalek fights them but honours them since they share its principles. But Amalek harbours deadly hatred for those whose spiritual and moral values idealise a society which transcends and refuses to be dictated to by the power of the sword, which teaches that the powerful are duty-bound to assist, rather than exploit, the weak. Thus, when the nation who embodies these values took its first step in history, Amalek rushed to “massacre your stragglers, all those who trailed after you when you were faint and weary”.

Judaism Reclaimed identifies a chilling similarity between this ideological depiction of Amalek and the belief system presented by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf. Hitler develops (perhaps selectively) an understanding of Friedrich Nietzsche’s theory of master and slave morality in which the superior, Aryan “ubermensch” was being compromised by the “slave morality” of those who insist on idealizing acts of kindness and mercy toward others (identified as Jews and those influenced by “Jewish morality”). It was, he claimed, the Jews’ perpetuation of the “slave morality” to serve the weak (spread via the Church, democracy, and Western civilization) that compromised the master race’s inherent entitlement to dominate humanity.

Jewish teachings are full of examples of how nothing stands in the way of true and genuine repentance. Rabbinic sources seek to demonstrate the extent of this principle with their depictions of bloodthirsty biblical figures such as Nevuzzeradon and Menashe being accepted as righteous converts and penitents. Nevertheless, in opposition to Christian theology which calls for even the most evil oppressors to be forgiven indiscriminately as a form of imitatio dei, Judaism believes that the ongoing existence and pursuit of such an ideology of evil is understood to challenge God’s sovereignty in the world, and certainly His core moral teachings. Thus, the ideology of Amalek and those who adhere to it, cannot be loved, forgiven or in any way reconciled with.

Further reading: The Virtue of Hate, by Meir Y. Soloveichik, here,

First posted on Facebook 18 January 2020 here.