View source for Amalek

==Interpretation==
===Judaism===
[[File:Davidster Dick Stins The Hague.jpg|thumb|"Davidstern" ([[Star of David]]) by Dick Stins is a [[The Holocaust|Holocaust memorial]] in [[The Hague]]. The text at the side (in Dutch and Hebrew) is from [[Deuteronomy]] 25:17, 19 – "Remember what Amalek has done to you ... do not forget."]]
In the ''[[Mishneh Torah]]'', [[Maimonides]] derived three commandments, two positive and one negative, related to references to Amalek in the [[Torah]]:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! #
! Type
! Commandment
! Source
|-
| 59
| Negative
| Not to forget the wicked deeds which Amalek perpetrated against us<ref>{{cite web |title=Mishneh Torah, Negative Mitzvot |url=https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Negative_Mitzvot.59 |website=[[Sefaria]] |access-date=15 January 2024}}</ref>
| "Do not forget" ({{bibleverse|Deut.||25:19|HE}})
|-
| 188
| Positive
| To exterminate the seed of Amalek<ref>{{cite web |title=Mishneh Torah, Positive Mitzvot|url=https://www.sefaria.org/Deuteronomy.25.18?lang=bi&aliyot=0&p2=Mishneh_Torah%2C_Positive_Mitzvot.188 |website=[[Sefaria]] |access-date=15 January 2024}}</ref>
| "You shall blot out the memory of Amalek" ({{bibleverse|Deut.||25:19|HE}})
|-
| 189
| Positive
| To constantly remember what Amalek did to us<ref>{{cite web |title=Mishneh Torah, Positive Mitzvot |url=https://www.sefaria.org/Deuteronomy.25.18?lang=bi&aliyot=0&p2=Mishneh_Torah%2C_Positive_Mitzvot.189 |website=[[Sefaria]] |access-date=15 January 2024}}</ref>
| "Remember what Amalek did to you" ({{bibleverse|Deut.||25:17|HE}})
|}

Many rabbinic authorities such as [[Maimonides]] ruled that the commandment only applies to a Jewish king or an organized community, and cannot be performed by an individual.<ref>[[Maimonides]] (Sefer Hamitzvot, end of positive commandments), [[Nachmanides]] (Commentary to Exodus 17:16), Sefer HaYereim (435), Hagahot Maimoniyot (Hilchot Melachim 5:5)</ref> According to [[Rashi]], the Amalekites were sorcerers who could transform themselves to resemble animals, in order to avoid capture. Thus, in {{Bibleverse|1 Samuel|15:3}}, it was considered necessary to destroy the livestock when destroying Amalek.<ref>[[Rashi]], 1 Samuel 15:3 commentary, The Rubin Edition, {{ISBN|1-57819-333-8}}, p. 93</ref> According to ''[[Haggahot Maimuniyyot]]'', the commandment only applies to the [[Messianic Age]] and not present times; medieval authorities widely support this limitation.<ref>{{cite web |first=Aryeh |last=Klapper |url=https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/how-not-to-talk-about-amalek/ |title=How Not to Talk About Amalek |work=The Times of Israel |date=4 March 2020 |access-date=16 January 2022 |url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200304085123/https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/how-not-to-talk-about-amalek/ |archive-date=4 March 2020 }}</ref> According to the Midrash, every nation on Earth has a guardian angel overseeing its destiny, except for two: Israel rejected archangel [[Michael (archangel)|Michael]] as its guardian, in favor of God himself. The other is Amalek, whose guardian angel is the foremost angel of evil, [[Satan]]. The final war will be fought between the children of God and the children of Satan, between good and evil. This is possibly why the 188th commandment exists: to wipe out Amalek completely, male and female, young and old, sparing none, since evil has no future. However, one obscure prophecy states that all nations will eventually worship God alone, which raises the question of how there can be a [[Third Temple]] when Amalek is annihilated. The Midrash state there is no quandary, given the last Amalekite is a convert to Judaism.<ref>THE MIDRASH SAYS, Copyright 1980 Rabbi Moshe Weissman, Brooklyn, NY. Benei Yakov Publications 1742 E.7th St. Brooklyn, NY 11223.</ref>

Maimonides elaborates that when the Jewish people wage war against Amalek, they must request the Amalekites to accept the [[Seven Laws of Noah]] and pay a tax to the Jewish kingdom. If they refuse, they are to be executed.<ref>[[Mishneh Torah]], Hilchot Melachim uMilchamot, 6:1 and 6:4</ref>

[[Zohar|The Zohar]] interprets the concept of Amalek differently: not as a distinct ethnic nation, but as the evil inclination (''[[yetzer hara]]'') present in every person, which must be eradicated and this interpretation became widespread among [[Sephardic Jews|Sephardi Jewish]] commentators.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Horowitz |first=Elliott |date=1999 |title=From the Generation of Moses to the Generation of the Messiah: The Jews Confront 'Amalek' and his Incarnations |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23563945 |journal=Zion |volume=64 |issue=4 |pages=445 |jstor=23563945 |issn=0044-4758}}</ref>

Other Talmudic commentators argued that the calls to spare no Amalekite or "blot out their memory" were metaphorical<ref name="JTAreject">{{cite news |last1=Kampeas |first1=Ron |title=Netanyahu rejects South Africa's claim that his quote about 'Amalek' was a call to genocide |url=https://www.jta.org/2024/01/16/israel/netanyahu-rejects-south-africas-claim-that-his-quote-about-amalek-was-a-call-to-genocide |access-date=13 February 2024 |work=[[Jewish Telegraphic Agency]] |date=16 January 2024}}</ref> and did not require the actual killing of Amalekites. [[Samson Raphael Hirsch]] said that the command was to destroy "the remembrance of Amalek" rather than actual Amalekites.<ref>Commentary to Deuteronomy 25</ref> [[Yehudah Aryeh Leib Alter]] interpreted the command as thoroughly hating Amalek without performing any physical action.<ref>Shemot Zachor 646</ref> [[Yisrael Meir Kagan]] said that God would perform the elimination of Amalek and that Jews only need to remember what Amalek did to them.<ref>Introduction to positive commandments, Beer Mayim Hayim, letter Alef</ref>

[[Isaac S.D. Sassoon]] believes that the ''[[herem (war or property)|ḥerem]]'' commands existed to prevent the Jewish community from being endangered but believes people should think twice before literally following them.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sassoon |first=Isaac S.D. |date=14 May 2015 |title=Obliterating Cherem |url=https://www.thetorah.com/article/obliterating-cherem |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240209001511/https://www.thetorah.com/article/obliterating-cherem |archive-date=9 February 2024 |website=TheTorah.com}}</ref> Nathan Lopes Cardozo argues that the Torah's ethically questionable laws were intentional since they were a result of God working with an underdeveloped world. He believes that God appointed the [[Chazal]] to help humanity evolve in their understanding of the Torah.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cardazo |first=Nathan Lopes |date=19 October 2016 |title=The Deliberately Flawed Divine Torah |url=https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-deliberately-flawed-divine-torah |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240212110948/https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-deliberately-flawed-divine-torah |archive-date=12 February 2024 |website=TheTorah.com}}</ref>

=== Christianity ===
Theologian [[Charles Ellicott]] explains that the Amalekites were subject to ''[[Herem (war or property)|ḥerem]]'' in the [[Book of Samuel]] for [[Incapacitation (penology)|incapacitation]] due to their 'accursed' nature and the threat they posed to the commonwealth of surrounding nations.<ref name="ellicott">{{Cite web|date=|title=1 Samuel 15: Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers|url=https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/1_samuel/15.htm|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141108155512/http://biblehub.com:80/commentaries/ellicott/1_samuel/15.htm |archive-date=8 November 2014 |access-date=|website=Biblehub}}</ref> [[Matthew Henry]] considers the ''ḥerem'' to be defensive warfare since the Amalekites were invaders.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022 |title=1 Samuel 14: Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible |url=https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/mhm/1-samuel-14.html#verses-47 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240123041504/https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/mhm/1-samuel-14.html#verses-47 |archive-date=23 January 2024 |website=StudyLight.org}}</ref> [[John Gill (theologian)|John Gill]] describes the ''ḥerem'' as the [[eye for an eye|law of retaliation]] being carried out.<ref>{{Cite web|title=1 Samuel 15: Gill's Exposition|url=https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/1_samuel/15.htm|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131217205118/http://biblehub.com:80/commentaries/gill/1_samuel/15.htm |archive-date=17 December 2013 |access-date=|website=Biblehub}}</ref>

According to Christian Hofreiter, almost all Christian authorities and theologians have historically interpreted the ''ḥerem'' passages literally. He states that "there is practically no historical evidence that anyone in the [[Great Church]]" viewed them as being purely an allegory. In particular, [[Augustine]], [[Thomas Aquinas]] and [[John Calvin]] have defended a literal reading of these passages at length. [[Origen]] is sometimes cited as having viewed the ''ḥerem'' passages allegorically; Hofreiter argues that although Origen prioritized a spiritual interpretation of the Bible, he did not deny that the ''herem'' passages described historical events.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hofreiter |first1=Christian |title=Making Sense of Old Testament Genocide: Christian Interpretations of Herem Passages |date=16 February 2018 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-253900-7 |pages=247–248 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_WlNDwAAQBAJ }}</ref>

===Modern academia===
Some commentators have discussed the ethics of the commandment to exterminate all the Amalekites, including children, and the presumption of [[collective punishment]].<ref>{{cite book |title=Divine Command Ethics: Jewish and Christian perspectives |last=Harris |first=Michael J. |pages=137–138}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=The Bible's Top Fifty Ideas: The essential concepts everyone should know |last1=Elkins |first1=Dov Peretz |last2=Treu |first2=Abigail |pages=315–316}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=The Ethics of War: Shared problems in different traditions |first1=Richard |last1=Sorabji |last2=Rodin |first2=David |page=98}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Theory and Practice in Old Testament Ethics |author1=Rogerson, John William |author2=Carroll, M. Daniel |page=92}}</ref> It has also been described as [[Genocide|genocidal]], according to [[Genocide studies|genocide scholars]] like [[Norman Naimark]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Naimark |first1=Norman M. |title=Genocide: A World History |date=2017 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-976526-3 |language=en|pages=8–9}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Morriston |first1=Wes |title=Ethical Criticism of the Bible: The Case of Divinely Mandated Genocide |journal=Sophia |date=2012 |volume=51 |issue=1 |pages=117–135 |doi=10.1007/s11841-011-0261-5 |s2cid=159560414 |url=https://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/divinely-mandated-genocide.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Freeman |first1=Michael |title=Religion, nationalism and genocide: ancient Judaism revisited |journal=European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie / Europäisches Archiv für Soziologie |date=1994 |volume=35 |issue=2 |pages=259–282 |doi=10.1017/S000397560000686X |jstor=23997469 |s2cid=170860040 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23997469 |issn=0003-9756|url-access=subscription }}</ref>{{sfn|Kugler|2020}}

Gili Kugler of the [[University of Haifa]] argues that the biblical condemnation of Amalek is reflective of the Israelites' fears of national destruction or a recurring historical evil, thus providing an answer to the problem of evil. It also reflected the Israelites' attempts to consolidate their ethnic identity since Amalek was acknowledged to be related to Israel but nonetheless, represented the "unwelcome brother and the rejected son". Kugler also argued that the Israelites perceived Amalek to be a reflection of themselves, containing everything that they hated, which they sought to eradicate. The emphasis of Amalek's destruction in the Book of Samuel additionally highlighted the leadership qualities of Saul and David.{{sfn|Kugler|2020}} 

According to Ada Taggar-Cohen of [[Doshisha University]], ''ḥerem'' commands were not uncommon in the ancient Near East. These commands had a dual purpose: convey to an enemy that the aggressor's deity was on their side, and that the enemy deserved the deity's wrath as punishment for their "sins". They also allowed kings to pursue militarist policies without accepting moral responsibility.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Taggar-Cohen |first=Ada |date=6 October 2022 |title=War at the Command of the Gods |url=https://www.thetorah.com/article/war-at-the-command-of-the-gods |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240209015324/https://www.thetorah.com/article/war-at-the-command-of-the-gods |archive-date=9 February 2024 |website=TheTorah.com}}</ref> C. L. Crouch of [[Radboud University]] considers the ''ḥerem'' commands to be an exceptional component to Israelite and Judahite warfare. They were erratically applied, even in the early stages of national and ethnic identity formation, and were an extreme means to eradicate the threat of chaos, views shared by [[Neo-Assyrian Empire|Assyrian]] rulers such as [[Esarhaddon]] and [[Ashurbanipal|Assurbanipal]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Crouch |first=C. L. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vDF9A0jT8RQC |title=War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence in Light of Cosmology and History |date=2009 |publisher=De Gruyter |isbn=978-3110223514 |edition=1st|doi=10.1515/9783110223521 }}</ref>

[[Paul Copan]] argues that the ''ḥerem'' commands were hyperbolic since the passages contain [[merism]]s such as "man and woman"<ref>{{Cite book |last=Copan |first=Paul |title=Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God |date=2011 |publisher=Baker Books |isbn=978-0801072758 |pages=175–176}}</ref> and Near Easterners valued "bravado and exaggeration" when reporting warfare.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Copan |first=Paul |date=Fall 2010 |title=How Could God Command Killing the Canaanites? |journal=Enrichment Journal |pages=138–143}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Copan |first=Paul |title=Is God a Vindictive Bully? Reconciling Portrayals of God in the Old and New Testaments |date=2022 |publisher=Baker Academic |isbn=978-1540964557 |pages=205}}</ref> Kugler believes this is an earnest attempt to absolve the Israelites, and their God, of moral responsibility. Nonetheless, she argues Copan's interpretation still "normalizes mass violence" and "hostility towards targeted groups".{{sfn|Kugler|2020}} However, scholars such as [[John H. Walton]] and [[Kenneth Kitchen]] also concluded that such language in the Hebrew Bible was hyperbolic, based on comparisons to the language of other literary cultures.<ref>Walton, J. H. (2017). ''The lost world of the Israelite conquest : covenant, retribution, and the fate of the Canaanites''. IVP Academic. p.16</ref><ref>Kitchen, Kenneth A. (2003), ''On the Reliability of the Old Testament''. Eerdmans. p. 97.</ref>