Amalek: What’s in a name?
Mar 10th, 2008 by MESH
From Raymond Ibrahim
During the eulogy of the eight slain students of the March 6 terrorist attack at Mercaz HaRav yeshiva school in West Jerusalem, highly-respected Rabbi Ya’akov Shapira made, for the average gentile, a rather elusive allusion regarding the attack: “The murderer did not want to kill these people in particular, but everyone living in the holy city of Jerusalem. The murderers are the Amalek of our day, coming to remind us that Amalek has not disappeared, just changed its appearance.” In similar terms, Jerusalem’s mayor Uri Lupolianski said: “They [the victims] came to grow stronger in the Torah and in the course of their studies they were murdered by the present day Amalek, who came back in [the Hebrew month of] Adar to remind us he has not gone. He has simply changed his face.”
This otherwise obscure biblical figure holds great symbolism in Jewish history. In Jewish scriptures and later Talmudic writings, he is often depicted as the archetypal enemy of the Jewish nation. Accordingly, the greatest enemies of the Jewish people—such as Hitler—are often referred to as “Amalek.”
During the Egyptian exodus, the nation of Amalek, the “Amalekites,” attacked the Hebrews; the latter won: “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.’ And Moses built an altar and called the name of it, The Lord is my banner, saying, and ‘A hand upon the throne of the Lord! The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.’” (Exodus 15-17.)
Some Israeli Jews have seen the surrounding Palestinians as the descendants—literal or spiritual makes no difference—of the Amalekites, who are to be fought “from generation to generation.” This has been a minority view, often held by ultra-orthodox extremists, but evocations of King Amalek and his nation are becoming more commonplace.
The other day I had an interesting conversation with Gershon Greenberg, co-editor of Wrestling with God: Jewish Theological Responses During and After the Holocaust and an authority on Jewish symbolism and what he calls “meta-history.” I discussed with him the significance of this latest terrorist strike—claimed or endorsed by a number of terrorist organizations—and the increasing use of the word “Amalek.” According to Greenberg, that the epithet “Amalek” is becoming more mainstream in describing the “enemy”—particularly by highly authoritative religious figures such as Rabbi Shapira—is indicative of a coalescing of the different political leanings into a more unified, long-term “right-wing” response. This could translate into more popular support for aggressively dealing with the Palestinians.
This may be even more ominous when we consider that many allusions to mass killing in the Jewish scriptures often pertain to the Amalekites: “Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” (1 Sam. 15:2-3.) Failure to literally obey this purging cost Saul his kingship (1 Sam. 28).
If these biblical excerpts appear ruthless, boding of mass killing, it is well to remember that Islam has (and Islamists often quote) similar texts directed at the Jews. The difference, however, is that whereas Hebrew scriptures speak of Amalek—not Arabs or Palestinians per se, leaving room for interpretation—Islamic texts are unambiguously directed at the Jews, such as the famous apocalyptic hadith that states that the End Times shall only be ushered in when the Muslims fight and kill the Jews (Sahih Muslim, B40N6985).
On both sides, the significance of words and their allusions should not be overlooked or underestimated in everyday politics, particularly when uttered by people who not only take them seriously, but wield power.
Comments are limited to MESH members and invitees
3 Responses to “Amalek: What’s in a name?”
Posts+Comments
Posts+Comments
Posts+Comments
Posts+Comments
Check upcoming events from the calendars of...
Raymond Ibrahim’s interesting post leaves out one detail: Amalek is especially on the mind of Rabbi Shapira and others because the Jewish holiday of Purim is coming soon. Purim is based on the Scroll of Esther, and in the scroll the villain, Haman, is linked to Amalek though his clan name—the Agagite. (So, in any event, the rabbinical tradition has always held.) Hence Mayor Lupolianski’s reference to the month of Adar, for that is the month of Purim.
Adam Garfinkle is a member of MESH.
Raymond Ibrahim’s post regarding the allusions to Amalek in the eulogies for the slain Yeshiva students is fascinating, and his interpretation of it as representing a larger right-wing coalescence shows that he is an apt observer of the currents that shape public and ultimately governmental opinion.
However, I believe he may be somewhat misguided in characterizing the references as a cause for concern and apparently equivalent to the directives given in the Quran for Muslims to kill Jews. As a graduate of Ner Israel Rabbinical College, one of the foremost institutions of right-wing Orthodox Judaism in the United States, I have done much research and study on the topic of Amalek. Frequently it was intoned in lectures that various enemies of the Jewish people constitute Amalek. This is also reflected in numerous Jewish rituals and observances, as well. During the Passover Seder, we say that “in each generation one rises up against us to destroy us,” as a reference to the prototypical Jewish enemy, Amalek.
The topic, though, is far more complex than a simplistic demonization of our enemies as a justification for Jewish action against them. Orthodox Judaism speaks about Amalek in much more symbolic terms, using the hashkafik, or philosophical approach to Amalek to delineate the essential battle between the forces of good and evil, a battle which is almost completely waged in the spiritual, as opposed to the physical realm. For example, the spiritual essence of Amalek is already found to exist, according to some prominent works, in the guise of the Snake in the Garden of Eden. This ties the destruction of Amalek to the much broader theme of Tikun Olam, ‘Repair of the World’ that is essentially the goal of Judaism in its entirety—to bring the world through observance of God’s commandments and loving-kindness to the state of being before the Fall of Man. The Zohar and Medrash state that God’s throne cannot be ‘complete’ until Amalek’s influence is eradicated.
Therefore, it is important to recognize that the battle with Amalek is figurative. The literal Biblical statement is that “Amalek chilled you.” This “chilling” is overwhelmingly interpreted as a spiritual tainting of the Jewish nation that needs to be repaired completely. Even the Biblical narrative of Saul’s war with Amalek and the destruction of the entire Amalekite nation (save for Agag, the king, who was let to live long enough to impregnate a woman who would eventually bear the grandfather of Haman, the antagonist of the Jewish story of Purim, which takes place this month, in Adar), is quite clear that it is far more than a physical battle, as it involved only choice fighters, not the whole nation; required the destruction of all of the possessions of the Amalekites (which is only found in Jewish Law regarding the physical possessions of an irreversibly idolatrous city); and seemed to depend on Moses’ lifting his hands heavenward, unique in all the battles recounted in the Bible.
In modern Jewish legal discussion, one is not allowed to ‘kill an Amalekite’ for this reason, and also because we simply do not know who for certain is one, and murder that is based on ambiguity is vehemently opposed by all Torah sources. I will conclude, therefore, that it is not possible to interpret the eulogies as having a practical effect for policy purposes on Israeli society. The Palestinians represent Amalek only in that they deliberately targeted the spiritual essence of the Jewish people by killing rabbinic scholars, students of the Torah. It is not a call to physical arms, but to spiritual redress—as the essence of the eulogy was about doing teshuva (repentance) and becoming better Jews on the spiritual plane. The comparison with the Quran’s directive to kill Jews, an unambiguous text that is currently being used to justify murder, is absurd in this light. Muslims have not been injured based on the idea of Amalek. To imply so does a great disservice and only gives fuel to those who seek to legitimize the murder of Jews based on demonizing Jewish belief so that they become the enemy of Muslims.
Joshua Jacobs studies law at New York University School of Law.
I did make it a point to distinguish that Amalek allusions are definitely open to interpretation and need not even apply to Arabs, whereas Islamic scriptures—as I often point out—do single out Jews by name and leave no room for interpretation. Comparison is a legitimate exercise. False parallels are another matter, and I did not draw one. The ultimate purpose of my post, after all, was to make a prediction—not engage in exegesis.
Raymond Ibrahim is a member of MESH.