S/O Derache’ha Darchei No’am

Zehava

Fri, May 15 2020, 11:42 am

BadTichelDay wrote:

It's not about their "race". Let's get the terminology straight - it's a pet peeve of mine. And I'm no friend of political correctness.

1) They were a nation, not a race. Why do people (especially Americans if I may say so) always get the two things mixed up? War between two different nations and even genocide doesn't automatically equate racism.
Their "race" was presumably "Middle Eastern" (what used to be incorrectly called Semitic by racists) - same as the Jews back then, and the Moabites and the Midianites and so on. Different nations, same race.
Italians, Poles, Swedes and Russians are different nations. They are all of the same "race" though, what Americans call Caucasian.
When former Yugoslavia violently came apart in the 90ies, different groups, Serbs, Croats and Bosnians, commited genocidal massacres against each other. But they were all white caucasian Europeans. That's not racism. It's warfare between different ethnic groups belonging to the same race. Cynically speaking, there are enough other "reasons" for genocide.

2) The reason given for the commandment is what they DID. Remember what Amalek DID to you... And while I have no time to look for the source now, there is a concept that anyone who does the deeds of Amalek, takes on the identity of Amalek. The Nazis definitely would have fit the description, even though blonde and blue eyed Germans are not the same "race" as some ancient Middle Eastern nation of color...
Amalek is a state of mind consisting of baseless hatred against Jews and Hashem and the deeds that stem from it. It's the mindset and its carriers that need to be eradicated, not the DNA of some ancient Middle Eastern tribe.
And isn't there a Midrash that says that some distant descendands of Sisera and Haman learned Torah in Bnei Brak? It's not about race. It's the attitude that defines.

(Edited for typos)

If we were to kill them now, it would definitely be for their race, meaning the blood in their veins.
You mean what their ancestors did. They did nothing. Especially the babies. And it’s a nice pshat to hang it onto anyone who does harm to the Jews. But that would be definition exclude children. So you think it’s okay to kill people for a mindset? Like everyone writing hateful things online, should we go kill them?

Zehava

Fri, May 15 2020, 11:46 am

amother [ Purple ] wrote:

To reiterate my understanding of this mitzvah, and again - this is my understanding, and there are surely other valid approaches, killing Amalek was justified at that time.
בני ישראל had just come out of slavery and accepted the role of a nation under God's rule. Through this, God just enlightened the world to a basic moral (which we adhere to today) - that slavery of people against their will is not ethical. Egypt at the time had enslaved not only the Jews, but many other nations. With יציאת מצרים, not only were בני ישראל removed from slavery, but the very idea of individual freedom was espoused.
Amalek then rose as a nation and challenged God, thereby challenging the morals of inherent freedom of the individual (among all other God-given beliefs). Their challenging of God was a sweeping ideology that encompassed all of them, and therefore to keep morality alive, a genocide of their nation was necessary at the time. Again, the mitzvah isn't to kill them solely because we think they are wrong in their beliefs, but rather because their beliefs challenge the morality of all of humanity. (This understanding also lines up with the concept of Israel being a "light unto the nations", meaning that our beliefs bring more morality into the extended world.)
Continuing with this approach, the mitzvah of killing Amalek is not relevant in today's days because they no longer as a nation stand against all of humanity's morals. Today it is an allegorical commandment, to eradicate within us any Amalek-like ideology which challenges the word of God.

It’s definitely very convenient to assume that it’s all allegorical nowadays. I was responding to posters who think it’s all still relevant. I definitely am in no position to condemn events that happened at a time when it was routine to kill entire nations in battle, including women and children, horrific as it is.

crust

Fri, May 15 2020, 11:52 am

Zehava wrote:

The mitzvah of physically killing them was only relevant in a time when there was nevuah.

Remind me which of the posters thinks it's still relevant now because I don't remember anyone saying this.
I mean, I hope nobody thinks there is a mitzvah of physically killing Amelek right now.

crust

Fri, May 15 2020, 12:13 pm

Zehava wrote:

Read through the thread
But also what if nevuah comes back

To be honest I started reading somewhere around page 9 or 10.

I believe that nevuah will come back. I believe we will be enlightened and we will comprehend things differently.
(According to many the enlightenment of the mind is זיו השכינה)

Rabbi Miller says that the reason nevuah and subsequently everything else was taken away from us is because we lost our ability to appreciate and comprehend.

It will come back with moshiach ב"ב.

Zehava

Fri, May 15 2020, 12:17 pm

crust wrote:

And then we will start killing babies again?

dancingqueen

Fri, May 15 2020, 12:51 pm

The past few pages have been strange IMHO. Many of our sages, from the gemara through the present day have had issues with genocide, zehava is not bringing up a new question. Most achronim understand the command to be wiping our an evil mindset, not physical murder, especially since we don’t know who amalek is after sancherev.

There are also a lot of questions of what will be in the times of mashiach; we don’t know.

malki2

Fri, May 15 2020, 1:02 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

The point here is that the Torah commands the physical wiping out of Amalek which is definitely defined as genocide of a nation. Can we all agree that to say that this is immoral is apikorsus? Even the poster who has gone off the rails has agreed to this. Afterwards we can discuss the question of whether this applies nowadays or in what context this will apply when Moshiach comes. But let’s not let the issue get clouded here. If someone says that genocide of Amalek is immoral, then she is saying that Hashem is immoral (Afra Lapumah) because He commanded it.

Zehava

Fri, May 15 2020, 1:11 pm

malki2 wrote:

If by that poster you mean me I agreed to no such thing

PinkFridge

Fri, May 15 2020, 1:14 pm

crust wrote:

IIRC I learned that nevuah disappeared when the yetzer hara for avodah zara was taken away, as a counter balance.

amother

Purple

Fri, May 15 2020, 1:20 pm

malki2 wrote:

The actual Torah commandment that is still valid is
תמחה את זכר עמלק.
Literally translating that into "murder all people of Amalek descent" is a little bit of a stretch.
The actual Torah commandment to kill Amalek was given to Shaul at a specific point in history.
Therefore, we cannot all agree to a blanket statement that in today's days, the murder of anyone of Amalek descent is not immoral.

Zehava - I think you'll find the Rambam's approach to this mitzvah interesting.

malki2

Fri, May 15 2020, 1:27 pm

amother [ Purple ] wrote:

Can we all agree that Shaul was commanded to wipe out all men, women, and children of Amalek, even the innocent little babies? And that this is defined as genocide? And if it was commanded by Hashem then it was not immoral? Or do some people (besides the other poster) have an issue with this?

amother

Purple

Fri, May 15 2020, 1:54 pm

malki2 wrote:

Even after re-reading the posts preceding this, I fail to see the issue.
I haven't seen one post question the morality of committing murder against Amalek in the PAST. There seems to be a consensus that in those times it was ok either due to Amalek's existential threat to בני ישראל, or it being more common practice altogether for warring nations to annihilate each other. Perhaps additional rationale was presented that I'm not remembering.
All I see is posters attempting to explain how that can be applicable TODAY, or in the FUTURE.

malki2

Fri, May 15 2020, 2:04 pm

amother [ Purple ] wrote:

That’s why I’m trying to bring it back to the original discussion, which was the concept of genocide in general as it relates to Amalek. If all genocide is immoral, then how could Hashem command Shaul to do it? Because even back then there were innocent babies who never did anything. If everyone is ok with this, then we can move on to discuss if and how this applies in the present and the days of the Moshiach. But IIRC there was one poster who had said that all genocide is and was unjustified, period. Please correct me if I am wrong.

daagahminayin

Fri, May 15 2020, 2:24 pm

malki2 wrote:

The word “morality” comes from the Latin “mores” meaning customs or proper behavior in society. By definition, morals change with time and place.

I think it’s possible to say that the commandment to kill all of Amalek was moral/not immoral for the time and place it was commanded but not for now. Then, it would have been in accordance with the Jewish people’s innate sense of right and wrong, justice, and practical safety and survival considerations. Now, it would not.