While I have been ruminating on the following idea and its consequences for a number of years, particularly around Purim, a question over at Mi Yodeya about whether or not Amalek has been destroyed prompted me to present the idea in its basic form:
While I haven't seen it spelled out per say, presumably because the mitzvah still has a very real relevance, it seems clear from the sources that while it wasn't preformed in the "lechatchila"/optimal manner the mitzvah in its primary manifestation was fulfilled by Shaul (or more correctly Shmuel):
From the Gemara in Sanhedrin (20b, see also Rashi) we see the mitzvah of cutting off Amelek was a prerequisite for the building of the Temple:
סנהדרין כ:ב תניא רבי יוסי אומר שלש מצות נצטוו ישראל בכניסתן לארץ להעמיד להם מלך ולהכרית זרעו של עמלק ולבנות להם בית הבחירה ואיני יודע איזה מהן תחילה כשהוא אומר כי יד על כס יה מלחמה לה' בעמלק הוי אומר להעמיד להם מלך תחילה ואין כסא אלא מלך שנאמר וישב שלמה על כסא ה' למלך ועדיין איני יודע אם לבנות להם בית הבחירה תחלה או להכרית זרעו של עמלק תחילה כשהוא אומר והניח לכם מכל אויביכם וגו' והיה המקום אשר יבחר ה' וגו' הוי אומר להכרית זרעו של עמלק תחילה וכן בדוד הוא אומר ויהי כי ישב המלך דוד בביתו וה' הניח לו מסביב וכתיב ויאמר המלך אל נתן הנביא ראה נא אנכי יושב בבית ארזים וגו'“It has been taught: R. Jose said: Three commandments were given to Israel when they entered the land; [i] to appoint a king; [ii] to cut off the seed of Amalek; [iii] and to build themselves the chosen house and I do not know which of them has priority. But, when it is said: The hand upon the throne of the Lord, the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation ,(Exodus 17:16) we must infer that they had first to set up a king, for ‘throne’ implies a king, as it is written, Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king (1 Chron. 29:23). Yet I still do not know which [of the other two] comes first, the building of the chosen Temple or the cutting off of the seed of Amalek. Hence when it is written, And when He giveth you rest from all your enemies round about etc., and then, Then it shall come to pass that the place which the Lord your God shall choose, (Deut. 12:10) it is to be inferred that the extermination of Amalek is first. And so it is written of David, And it came to pass when the king dwelt in his house, and the Lord had given him rest from his enemies round about, and the passage continues; that the king said unto Nathan the Prophet: See now, I dwell in a house of cedars etc. [Soncino]
Which is brought down as halachah in the Mishneh Torah:
משנה תורה: הלכות מלכים ומלחמותיהם א:ב מנוי מלך קדם למלחמת עמלק, שנאמר: "אתי שלח ה' למשחך למלך עתה לך והכיתה את עמלק". והכרתת זרע עמלק קודמת לבנין הבית, שנאמר: "ויהי כי ישב המלך בביתו וה' הניח לו מסביב מכל איביו. ויאמר אל נתן הנביא, אנכי יושב בבית ארזים וגו'"The appointment of a king should precede the war against Amalek. [This is evident from Samuel’s charge to King Saul] (I Samuel 15:1-3): “God sent me to anoint you as king . . . Now, go and smite Amalek.” Amalek’s seed should be annihilated before the construction of the Temple, as [II Samuel 7:1-2] states: “And it came to pass, when the king dwelled in his palace, and God gave him peace from all enemies who surrounded him, the king said to Nathan, the prophet: Look! I am dwelling in a house of cedar, . . . [but the ark of God dwells within curtains]. [Moznaim]
This seems consistent with the peshuto shel mikra (plain meaning) of 1 Samuel 15 where it is related that King Saul destroyed the nation of Amalek, only sparing King Agag and animals (although he was not supposed to spare either). King Agag, however, was executed by Shmuel after he rebuked Saul for his disobedience. That this commandment found its historical fulfillment doesn't detract from its status as a commandment. Yet it seems to me that although Amalek was destroyed in a literal sense, a prerequisite for building the Temple as we have seen, by failing to do so as commanded Saul allowed the ["disembodied"] spirit of Amalek to live on. It is in this sense that we find the primary significance of Haman's descent from Amalek regardless of how literal we should take the midrashim about Agag siring offspring during his brief period in custody. Haman is called Agagi, not Amalaki, he carries on the "spirit" and "mission" of Amalek not as Amalek strictly defined but because the Bnei Yisrael failed to preform the mitzvah as commanded even though the end result was equivalent.
8 comments:
A mitzvah, as you suggest, is forever. So, after the physical Amalek will be vanquished, probably by Moshiach, or in Moshiach's times, the mitzvah may well continue in the spiritual sense, that is, to vanquish the YETZER HARA. (AMALEK and MELIKAH, to break the neck of a bird, share the same derivation, implying that the neck, the narrow part between the head and the torso, represents the constraints that we experience when having to resolve in our hearts to actualize that which the brain well knows. ) I'm no POSAIK, so I don't know if this transformation is "allowed", because a mitzvah must remain a mitzvah forever, otherwise the allocation of 3 more cities of refuge may never, God forbid, be realized. It must be, though I am not sure, that remembering to wipe out the memory Amalek is an eternal mitzvah.
So - as you suggest, that Amalek may well have been somehow vanquished because only Aggag is mentioned - that I do NOT buy. Maybe the tem Aggagii just goes to show that leaving only ONE Amaleki alive, as Saul did, for one night, was enough to breed an Aggag who thereby repopulated the world with these haters of God and Jew.
You only have to make a cursory perusal among internet sites, or in countries around the world, to see that Jew hatred is still alive and well.
Certainly Yishmael too hates the Jew. But Amalek still holds a solid and huge footprint that cannot be believed to me vanquished whatsoever.
"So - as you suggest, that Amalek may well have been somehow vanquished because only Aggag is mentioned - that I do NOT buy."
That is not what I said. I said that the Gemara, Rashi, and Rambam explain Amalek must be destroyed prior to the building of the Beis HaMikdash. The point about Haman haAgagi is incidental.
"You only have to make a cursory perusal among internet sites, or in countries around the world, to see that Jew hatred is still alive and well."
That isn't really relevant. Nowhere are we told that only Amalek will hate Jews. Furthermore it is clear that the "spirit" of Amalek lives on since Shaul did not fulfill the mitzvah lechatchilla even if the commandment was fulfilled.
Yirmiyahu, there is no such thing as, "The point about Haman haAgagi is incidental." How can you say that? Torah, by definition, means, a book of instruction, ie, that even the stories therein hold lessons to learn from. NOTHING is incidental - especially in TORAH! Probably you meant to say something else.
We know that Agag is an Amelkite. Why instead of saying "the Amalekite" instead of "the Agagi" of course has a reason, but it cannot be the one you claim.
As for Amalek hating the Jews, Rashi says somewhere because he hates God. That you can say, "Nowhere are we told that only Amalek will hate Jews", just doesn't mesh with the impression I took away from this subject the last 22 years. Not that that number of years is significant, but the topic always is floated by Chabad, so I figure too that my general impression of a consensus is accurate.
Yirmiyahu, I don't deny that you can learn, but to produce this novel notion of yours, on your own, I do believe was premature, if not diametrically out of consonance with talmudic scholars.
IVG-
You know that you are one of my three commentors so you are clearly of above average taste and wisdom :)
That being said so far your only response has been to misread what I've said and otherwise counter that it varies with your prior understanding without any evidence to support your opinion.
"Yirmiyahu, there is no such thing as, "The point about Haman haAgagi is incidental." How can you say that? Torah, by definition, means, a book of instruction, ie, that even the stories therein hold lessons to learn from. NOTHING is incidental - especially in TORAH! Probably you meant to say something else."
You are misinterpreting my words. I did not say the Torah's teaching was incidental, I said my statement regarding it was incidental.
"That you can say, "Nowhere are we told that only Amalek will hate Jews", just doesn't mesh with the impression I took away from this subject the last 22 years."
Then you haven't thought about it clearly. There were plenty of nations who hated us, and tried to kill us, in the time the nation of Amalek still existed. Furthermore we see that halachicly the fact that someone hates Jews does not give them the din of Amalek. The sources, especially in Chassiduc writings, treat the battle of Amalek first and foremost as a ruchnius battle bizman hazeh (without denying the mitzvah k'peshuto).
With regard to my position, however, it is the simple reading of the Navi, Gemara, Rashi, and Rambam and I have not found anything which directly opposes it. If you have any evidence which is contrary to this then please produce it...
You can accomplish a lot, in fact bring a nation back to life, in a one-night stand.
Just as Haman wasn't the son of Hamdatha, yet so is he named, to show how cruel he was, so too he was an Aggagi, because King Shaul did not obey Hashem's commandment.
By saying, "... although Amalek was destroyed in a literal sense..." - you make up false facts. They were NOT destroyed "in a literal sense", so get over it.
Moshiach will destroy the Amalekites, after we accept King Moshiach and probably, if memory serves me well, after Binyan Bet Hamikdash.
"By saying, "... although Amalek was destroyed in a literal sense..." - you make up false facts. They were NOT destroyed "in a literal sense", so get over it."
I have provided evidence for my claim...you have not. Do not comment further unless you provide sources, particularly those which address mine.
Go read the GRA on Haman HaAggagi. He says, Haman was called Aggagi because the mistake of leaving Aggag alive one night brought about the potential disaster that Purim lead to. In a few words he rebuts your entire thesis.
What you seem to be trying to say appears practically heretical, namely, that Amalek had already been vanquished, except in spirit.
Your premise from the start is at fault, namely, to consider "about whether or not Amalek has been destroyed", either because you read or heard about that idea, or came upon it yourself. It is 1 of 3 Mitzvos upon entering The Land. As such, it MUST hold suasion at least until that war is done with.
The Rambam states these 3 laws in the wrong order. You quote the gemora in Sanhedrin, which has it right.
There are those who even question whether women are obligated in this Mitzvah. What Mitzvah - according to you?
Pardon my stringent mode, but your "evidence" hardly qualifies as such, because you disregard or dismiss as insignificant the act of the man who caused the justifiable downfall of King Shaul, and who wanted to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth, as probably his distant cousin also tried a few score years ago.
This is not a spiritual Mitzvah - not yet anyways! The only reason we got a reprieve of this Mitzvah was simply the result of Sancheriv's mixing up the endemic nationalities in their forced diaspora.
1. You are incorrect. The Rambam states the mitzvos in the same order as the Gemara. Both of which require Amalek to be destroyed before the Beis HaMikdash was built.
2. You assertion that the mitzvah must "hold suasion" until the war was complete, thus implying that it wasn't sufficiently complete for the the mitzvah to be fulfilled is fundamentally unsound. According to your reasoning the Beis HaMikdash should not have been built, not only because they didn't destroy Amalek but they hadn't even finished "entering the land". Furthermore according to your reasoning Shmuel told Shaul to fulfill the mitzvah before it was supposed to be fulfilled. Accordingly, if you wish to go in such a manner, your reasoning is "practically heretical" since it contradicts the T'nakh and Gemara.
3.Although Sancheriv's mixing up of the nation is brought up in regards to other mitzvos/nations...it is not brought up with regard to Amalek.
4. Your accusation that I "disregard" anything is inappropriate, but it reveals that you fail to understand the import of Shaul's sin. His action isn't judged so severely because of the negative consequences but because he disobeyed. Furthermore ultimately the dire consequences of his actions aren't a result of a "security breech" provided by his poor decision but by the spiritual damage done by his disobedience.
Your placement of my evidence in quotations, like most of your arguments, is simply a distraction. The Gemara, Rashi, and Rambam all say the destruction of Amalek must be prior to the Beis HaMikdash being built and the Navi tells us it was so. You have provided no evidence to the contrary except for a literal reading of a midrash without any serious consideration of its meaning, intent or implications.
Frankly your comprehension for what I have written, including the primary sources, seems to lack clarity and you are intent on subjecting these sources to your preconceived notion without understanding them.
Post a Comment