Lesson 7 – The Tribulations of Amalek

The tribe of Amalek has become for the Jewish tradition the symbol of all that is considered demonic. The Torah prescribes that the tribe be both annihilated, on the one hand, and remembered for its dastardly acts, on the other. Yet when it comes to spelling out what exactly those acts were and why they occurred, the accounts in the Torah are laconic and surprisingly lacking details.

There are two accounts of the acts of Amalek in the Torah, one in the book of Shemot (the end of Parashat Beshallach) which we read as the special Torah reading on Purim morning and the other in the book of Devarim (the end of Parashat Ki Tetzei) which we read as the special Torah reading for Shabbat Zachor. In addition there is an episode in the book of Samuel involving Israel’s first king, Saul, the prophet Samuel and the tribe of Amalek.

In the rabbinic treatment of these passages, I intend to show you three approaches (among others) to the question of what made the Amalekites different from other enemies, but more on that later. Presently, I want to examine the two sources from the Torah and two compare them to note the differences in their approaches.

Sources From the Torah

Questions and Comments

1. Describe what goes on in verses 8-13. Who is involved in the action?
2. Who will “blot out” Amalek according to verses 14-16?
3. Can you discern a particularly unusual sin on the part of Amalek?
4. Take a look at verse 16. Does this offer an answer to the previous question?

Questions and Comments

1. How does this passage differ from the passage in Shemot?
2. What is Amalek’s sin according to this passage?
3. Who has the responsibility for blotting out Amalek according to this passage?

The Midrash

A. Our first selection comes from a midrashic collection called the “Mechilta deRabbi Yishmael”. This is a midrash from the period of the Mishnah on the book of Exodus. That makes it one of the earliest rabbinic midrashim on the book of Exodus.

This passage will include a midrash on the opening words of the passage from Exodus, in particular, the first two words: ” ויבא עמלק ” – “Then came Amalek”. Since these words do not specify for what purpose Amalek came, it gives the sages an opportunity to fill in this gap. It will be your responsibility in this lesson to catalogue the different approaches to this question.

Comments and Questions

1. As I said before, it is for you task is to catalogue the different approaches in this passage to the question of Amalek’s accountability.

B . Our second set of selections comes from a later collection of midrashim – Pesikta deRav Kahana, from the period of the Talmud in Eretz Yisrael. These midrashim are primarily based on the passage from Devarim (source 2) but also involve the passage from Shemot.

Comments and Questions

1. This midrash does something fascinating. It compares and contrasts the passage in Shemot with the passage in Devarim and tries to reconcile them by giving the conflicting verses separate meaning. In the process, this midrash gives us a whole new perspective on Amalek’s sin. Describe it.

Comments and Questions

1 This midrash is theologically on the same wave length as the previous one but sees in Amalek a cosmic threat. What is that threat and how can it be rectified?

Conclusions

I have a general comment or two before we get to the material at hand. A common phenomenon has come to my attention. We human beings have a common tendency to make associations and generalizations. This ability goes hand in hand with new discoveries and intelligence in general. However, sometimes it is a drawback when it does not allow us to read something simply for what it says. Sometimes we are interested in what a particular text says. In such a case, we must be very careful about imposing other ideas onto the text and or assuming all texts are saying the same thing or synthesizing all of the ideas we may have and reading that into a text.

This often happens in a religious tradition. People think that Judaism speaks with a single voice or “the rabbis say” and so forth. The facts are that the Jewish tradition is not monolithic. The rabbis did not speak in one voice and midrashim are often saying different things one from another. Each one must be examined on its own merit.

This is a great introduction to a conclusion on the subject of Amalek where I presented a plethora of diverse sources expressing different messages. There were however tends among these sources. The sages seemed intent on trying to explain what made Amalek different from other enemies, trying to figure out why they were singled out for different treatment.

I presented sources where seem to point out four different trends among others.

1. The Amalekites were a unique enemy who were uniquely evil in that they attacked Israel in unusual ways or they attacked without having a rational reason or their hatred was excessive.
2. The Amalekites were God’s enemy who overthrow God or God’s people.
3. The Amalekites were an answer to some personality flaw in the Jewish people.
4. The Amalekites were punishment for sins or behavioral flaws in the Jewish people.

What is common to all of the midrashic explanations allows us to make a claim about rabbinic interpretation. We see here a process of reading into and reading out of the text in order to explain the reality of the sages. All of the explanations cited above speak to the interrelations of the rabbi, their clientele and the world that they live in. They are using the Biblical texts and their explanations to preach messages to their audience.

This is important for us to note because it tells us that their midrashim often say more about the rabbis that composed them than it does about the plain meaning of the Biblical text. We must be aware of this and be able to distinguish between the explanations and the text itself. This is precious for us because its gives us more ideas in our repertoire.