(1) The Biblically mandated vendetta against the nation of Amalek is well known to all religious Jews, enshrined as it is in a variety of rituals designed to keep its memory alive. Infamy notwithstanding, its roots are not so easily decipherable. In fact, its very existence is not without some serious questions.

(2) As Netziv asks, why should God include this among His eternal commandments when its ultimate point, the eradication of Amalek, was basically accomplished a long time ago? Moreover, Netziv continues, even if there may be a few of Amalek’s descendants still walking around, it is difficult to understand all the commotion about something that long ago stopped being any sort of threat whatsoever. Finally, he asks, if we are commanded to eradicate not only the renegade nation but its very memory, the Torah makes that impossible simply by mentioning it. And since the Torah is eternal and will always be read, says Netziv, it appears that we will always hear about Amalek, even after most other nations have long been forgotten! (Haamek Davar on Shemot 17:14)

(3) The Torah has two main discussions about Amalek, the first in Shemot 17:8–16 and the second in Devarim 25:17–19. The first includes a longer discussion of Amalek’s attack against the children of Israel on their way out from Egypt and God’s subsequent command to wage perpetual war against this enemy. We are told of a formal battle led by Yehoshua and organized by Moshe.¹⁰⁴Abarbanel, parashat Ki Tetzei, question 26. Essentially, Abarbanel held there were two wars – or at least two battles – and that the passage in Shemot relates to both of them, whereas the passage in Devarim relates only to the first one. And while the passage in Devarim also summarizes this battle, it also adds strikingly new details. Abarbanel points out that a cursory reading makes it sound as if the Torah is describing an altogether different battle, telling us about a surprise attack against the stragglers in the Israelite camp.

(4) Perhaps more difficult to understand is the role played by Yehoshua. In the passage in Shemot, he appears out of nowhere to become the head of the Jewish army. Even more curious is the Torah’s insistence that his personal duty to fight against Amalek is to continue even after the war, such that God commands Moshe that the injunction to destroy Amalek be “placed in [Yehoshua’s] ears” (Shemot 17:14). To further complicate matters, he is called Yehoshua in this battle even though his name is formally changed from Hoshea to Yehoshua only later, in the story of the spies (Bemidbar 13:16). In short, Yehoshua dramatically appears on the scene, taking a major role in the conflict, and then goes right back into the shadows, appearing only occasionally throughout the rest of the Torah.¹⁰⁵Most notably in the story of the spies (Bemidbar 13:1–14:10), even though he is relatively quiet, and in passages that have to do with the succession of leadership in Bemidbar 27:18–22 and Devarim 31:3–23.

(5) A Nation of Pirates

(6) Before we get back to the questions about the man who would become Moshe’s successor, it might be helpful to address another question: From the text it is not so clear why such harsh treatment is reserved uniquely for Amalek.¹⁰⁶See Ramban on Shemot 17:16. Why is this nation considered worse than the Egyptians, who afflicted the Jews for hundreds of years, or even the Moabites, who used all sorts of machinations to destroy the Jews when they crossed the desert? The fact that quite a few answers are given demonstrates that there is no single, obvious answer.¹⁰⁷A good summary of the reasons generally given can be found in Abarbanel, op. cit.

(7) The commandment in the book of Devarim to remember what Amalek did to the Jews gives some explanation as to what was most objectionable about that nation’s behavior. The key verse tells us that Amalek “came (or chanced) upon you (the Israelites) in the desert and cut off your tail (vayizanev) – all of those who were struggling after you, and you were tired and exhausted – and did not fear God” (Devarim 25:18).¹⁰⁸It is not clear whether the last part of the verse: “and did not fear God,” is speaking about Amalek or about the Jewish stragglers, though the former would make more sense in context and we will follow that understanding here. It is also the favored approach among the classical commentators. Commentators struggle with this verse for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is difficult to ascertain which part gives us the explanation we are looking for. Nor are all of its components clear in their own right.

(8) The most intuitive issue presented by the Torah is that Amalek picked on those struggling to keep up with the march of the Jewish camp. For our purposes, we will assume that this is, in fact, the reason for our enmity. While the Torah’s own laws of war¹⁰⁹See Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 6. See also Lawrence Schiffman and Joel B. Wolowelsky (eds.), War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 2007), especially R. Michael Broyde, “Just Wars, Just Battles, and Just Conduct in Jewish Law,” pp. 1–44. don’t expressly forbid attacks on stragglers, it may be a case of something so obvious that the Torah did not feel the need to mandate it.¹¹⁰Rabbi Shadal on Vayikra 24:10 gives this as the reason why blasphemy was not legislated until it was committed for the first time. Moreover, the Torah makes provisions for non-combatants to escape.¹¹¹Rambam, op. cit., 7. But even if all of the above is true, why is attacking the enemy’s weak elements so despicable that it warrants eternal enmity? It appears that the answer to that is in the last part of the verse: “and [they] did not fear God.”

(9) Attacking the helpless does not always come from the base immorality of those who don’t fear God. Sometimes it is the only survival strategy of the weak, of those who simply don’t have the power to engage more powerful opponents head-on. The Torah tells us this was not the case with Amalek, who were so strong that the Israelites required great effort to defeat them (Shemot 17:11–13).¹¹²Accordingly, some understand the description of Amalek in Bemidbar 24:20 as the “first among nations” as referring to their formidable military prowess. Their decision to prey on the weak, then, could have come only from a rank insouciance about the rules of fair play implicit in living in God’s world. Perhaps we can understand, if not necessarily forgive, attacking the helpless as the last-ditch strategy of a weak nation. It is quite another thing, however, when it becomes standard operating procedure, as it apparently was with Amalek. That could only come from the absence of fear of God.

(10) Indeed, the nation of Amalek would become known as the area’s marauders.¹¹³See I Shmuel 30:1–3 and its treatment by Rabbi Ya’akov Medan, “Amalek” (http://etzion.org.il/en/amalek), section C. They were not a military nation in the sense of ancient Sparta, interested in valiant acts of conquest. As we see from the book of Shmuel, theirs was a culture of finding the easiest way to acquire booty. They searched for vacuums of power and law enforcement which would enable them to help themselves to the possessions of others. In such a situation, the more ruthless one is, the more successful he is as well, because the greatest limit on the activity of such people is their own conscience.

(11) Awe and Decency

(12) The Torah wants us to understand that Amalek’s pirate-like existence did not emerge as a fluke, but rather was deeply rooted in their approach to life more generally, i.e., in what the Torah calls “not fearing God.” On the face of it this is a strange claim, for which pagan nations of the time could actually be described as God-fearing? And yet Amalek is the only one the Torah singles out as not fearing God. It is important to note that from among the few times the concept is mentioned in this form is when Avraham says Avimelech’s country was devoid of the fear of God (Bereshit 20:11) and when Yosef, posing as an Egyptian, reassures his brothers that he fears God (Bereshit 42:18). As these references are dealing with non-Jews, it appears that even if almost all of the nations of the time were idolatrous, there was nevertheless an expectation that they should be – and, in fact, often were – “God-fearing.”

(13) The word for God used in all three instances discussed above is Elokim, the generic name connoting both power and the notion of God as the universal Creator and ruler of the natural world. Fearing God, then, could more generally be thought of as fearing higher powers, and thus not necessarily presuppose monotheism. Instead, it is an attitude that comes from acknowledging something greater than men and their nations, something that by its very transcendence informs the human condition. That power (or powers) has a unique connection to human beings and therefore demands, whether explicitly or implicitly, a modicum of respect for other people who share this condition. We may want to refer to it as awe – a generic awe that leads to a certain basic decency. Certainly in the cases we have noted such an idea fits much better than the theologically charged notion that we usually associate with the fear of God.

(14) When the Torah tells us that the nation of Amalek did not fear God, it is saying that they were unrestrained by any concept of a higher power and thus possessed an unusual lack of common decency. They were the most extreme manifestation of this attitude. Their pirate-like behavior reflects a lack of respect for man’s uniqueness and ultimately for the power that stands behind it. No wonder, then, that the Jews are commanded to blot out Amalek. They represent an antithesis to the Jewish nation’s mission in the world, and their approach to life presents a formidable obstacle to the Jewish people’s goal of establishing a kingdom of God on earth.

(15) The fight against Amalek does not end when the nation is destroyed, for even when it would be defeated its legacy would likely remain. As long as greed exists in the human heart, there will always be a need to fight against the temptation to view others as mere objects standing in the way of one’s advancement.¹¹⁴This is one of the main themes in Crime and Punishment, by the Russian Christian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The eternal struggle against Amalek is how Judaism formalizes this need.¹¹⁵While Netziv (Haamek Davar on Shemot 17:14) presents a different approach, he also posits that it is not the nation of Amalek that we need to perpetually blot out but rather their attitude and ideology.

(16) Amalek and Atrocity

(17) The lack of awe we just described may have led, and historically has often led, to something even more problematic than the objectification of others. A closer reading of the text opens up such an understanding here as well.

(18) There is a very unusual verb describing what Amalek did to the Jews, vayizanev. While it is not clear exactly what it means, the root zanav, tail, gives us a good clue. Most commentators understand the use of this root in context to mean, as mentioned earlier, that Amalek attacked the stragglers at the back of the Israelite camp.¹¹⁶Ibn Ezra on Devarim 25:18. See also Radak on Yehoshua 10:19. But there is another understanding offered in the Midrash (Tanchuma, Ki Tetzei 10) and subsequently by Rashi on Devarim 25:18. The tail that was acted upon doesn’t relate to the Israelite camp but to another appendage of individual Israelite soldiers. Accordingly, this approach to the text tells us that Amalek castrated the Jews they attacked in order to show their disdain for their victims.

(19) The Midrash connects this with the mitzva of circumcision and the possibility that Amalek’s sudden and strange attack on the Israelites may have been more than a routine assault to obtain plunder. It was an expression of utter contempt for God’s Torah and its commandments. Mangling the human organ of circumcision was Amalek’s way of showing this.

(20) Since it is hard (though obviously, not impossible) to imagine such a scenario on a purely literal level, the rabbis may actually have been referring to the existential opposition that existed between Amalek’s national character and God’s general mandate to the Jews, which is at least partly represented by circumcision. Even if the historical Amalek did not know enough about the Jews or their Torah to plan how to agitate against them, their very behavior was in itself an affront to that which the Torah stood for.¹¹⁷In my upcoming volume on Vayikra, I will discuss why this commandment was especially antithetical to the Amalekite ethos. The Torah is meant to bring a God-consciousness into the world, ideally by encouraging compassion toward His creatures but at the very least by demanding a basic decency toward them. Amalek’s attitude toward others shows an attitude that can only push God-consciousness away from mankind.

(21) On a simple textual level, it is likely that mutilating the bodies of their enemies was standard practice for Amalek, done as a matter of policy. And it reflects even more strongly their lack of fear of God. Where there is no reverence, there are no limits. In such a situation, what ultimately results is a state that Hobbes famously describes as “nasty and brutish.” In fact, there can be no better description of Amalek’s modus vivendi in its struggle against Israel.

(22) Amalek and Esav

(23) Because Amalek represents the antithesis of Judaism, Jewish tradition shows great interest in this otherwise insignificant nation. For one, it looks at Amalek’s antecedents in order to understand how people can turn into monsters. The roots of the Amalekites are fairly well known: the Torah tells us the people are named after a grandson of Esav (Bereshit 6:12).¹¹⁸See also, Rabbi Y.S. Reggio on Shemot 17:8, who presents solid evidence that this grandson was actually the leader of the nation at the time of the attack on the Jews on their way out of Egypt. Jewish tradition supplements this information by describing Amalek as the most antagonistic of Esav’s progeny.¹¹⁹See, for example, Tanchuma, Shelach 9.

(24) Amalek himself notwithstanding, it is almost expected that a descendent of Esav would be in conflict with the descendants of Ya’akov. For even if there was an apparently peaceful reconciliation between Ya’akov and Esav back in Bereshit 33:1–17, the story is nuanced enough to leave several rabbinic voices wondering whether Esav’s descendants can be trusted. Likewise, we continue to wonder whether there would have been continued resentment with regard to the blessing and birthright that Esav lost to Ya’akov and his descendants.¹²⁰See Sifrei Bamidbar 69.

(25) Some commentators suggest that Amalek’s struggle against Israel is a continuation of the vendetta between the two brothers. This serves as the prime motivation for Amalek’s otherwise difficult to understand attack against Israel.¹²¹Foremost being Abarbanel on Shemot 17:8. See also Malbim ad loc. Amos Chacham, in his commentary in Da’at Mikra, tries to find a more rational explanation for the attack. In spite of his best efforts, however, there seems to be no hint to these reasons in the Torah itself. In this context, it is important to recall that the blessing Yitzchak gives Esav and his descendants makes their success seemingly contingent on the failure of Ya’akov’s descendants (Bereshit 27:40). Hence, to the extent that the nation of Amalek was aware of this, its members would certainly have had an interest in destroying the new Jewish nation – and to do so at this point, before it became more settled and powerful.

(26) Part of the suspicion surrounding Esav’s continued hatred of Ya’akov, however, comes not from the issue of unfinished business as much as from the personality traits the rabbis saw in Esav. Some readers miss why rabbinic tradition seems so stacked against Esav, especially in view of his being taken advantage of by his younger brother. But while the difficulties Esav faced may partially excuse his problematic behavior, Yitzchak’s blessing that he should live by the sword did not come out of the blue. He was already known as the hunter of the family (Bereshit 25:27). This in itself need not be a bad thing. Violence against animals and even people has its place in the context of human survival and prosperity. That being said, it is also easily misused.

(27) And so it is with Esav. He is the first person in the Bible who threatens to kill someone, and not just a random someone but his own brother (Bereshit 27:41). Although we see fratricide with the Bible’s very first brothers, Kayin’s murder of Hevel was not premeditated and it was apparently regretted. Moreover, its shadows do not cast the same pallor on future events that would be the case with Esav’s behavior.

(28) A careful reading of Esav’s story shows many other deficiencies in his personality,¹²²See, for example, Bereshit 26:34–5, where his choice of wives meets the clear disapproval of his parents. Moreover, his disdain for his own birthright (Bereshit 25:34) is also commonly understood to show poor character. but even if all we had to go on was his stated intention to murder his brother, that would be enough in order to understand him as someone who sees others as mere objects. One who is prepared to murder another human being is showing that another’s right to life is purely dependent upon the aggressor’s own needs or preferences – similar to how most of us think about inanimate objects.

(29) Of all of Esav’s descendants, we only see Amalek taking on this trait of nonchalance toward the sanctity of life that most rational human beings find so objectionable. While rapprochement with the other descendants of Esav is at least a possibility,¹²³See Redeeming Relevance in Genesis, Chapter 5. the Torah seems to rule it out when it comes to Amalek.

(30) Yehoshua and Yosef

(31) It is not only on Amalek’s side that there is a connection to earlier generations; it appears to be relevant on the Jewish side of the battle lines as well. Earlier, we mentioned the very strong but far from obvious connection between Yehoshua and the war with Amalek. The Midrash (Shemot Rabba 26:30) offers several explanations for this, most of them based on Yehoshua’s being descended from Yosef. There is a strong tradition that the nemesis of Amalek’s ancestor Esav is none other than Yehoshua’s ancestor Yosef. We could conclude, therefore, that Yehoshua is chosen for this fight by virtue of his ancestry.

(32) But going back a step we need to ask the question: what is it about Yosef that made him a thorn in Esav’s side? Most of the midrashic literature cites various contrasting parallels that make them appear to be polar opposites. For example, Esav loses his birthright to his younger brother and Yosef acquires some firstborn rights from his older brother.¹²⁴See Bereshit Rabba 99:2 and especially Pesikta Rabbati 12:5–6, both of which list several other examples. In general, the various contrasts point to Esav’s succumbing when faced by moral challenges, while Yosef does not. Furthermore, the Midrash points out that in order to vanquish the powerful Esav, it was necessary for Yosef to have lived a life that would bring an especially high level of Divine favor.

(33) A closer look at the relevant midrashic literature shows that Yosef actually had a lot in common with Esav. This is so much the case that we could even construe Esav to be his alter ego. For example, the rabbis note that just as Esav did not learn from the two righteous men who surrounded him (Yitzchak and Ya’akov), Yosef did not learn from the two evildoers who surrounded him (Potiphar and Pharaoh).¹²⁵Pesikta Rabbati 12:5–6 One could say that this too emphasizes their dissimilarity, but in fact we see that they were both too strong-willed to be affected by their surroundings. Moreover, returning to the previous example, although one gained the leadership associated with the firstborn and the other one lost it,¹²⁶Even if Esav appears to have given his birthright away to Ya’akov without much resistance, the incident remained a sore spot for him, as we see when the blessing is taken away later on (Bereshit 27:36). Moreover, Esav’s concern with the blessing and its legacy may also have gone above and beyond those aspects of the birthright he gave away, as per Bereshit Rabba 63:13, which is subsequently cited by Rashi on Bereshit 25:31. it was clearly of great importance to both of them. And the importance they both attached to it may have had a great deal to do with their aspirations of inheriting their respective fathers’ legacies. In this regard, something the Midrash doesn’t mention is that both were their respective fathers’ favorites.¹²⁷The Pesikta Rabbati cited above does not examine Yosef’s and Esav’s relationship with their fathers as much as the unusual relationship each had with his mother. Yosef protected his mother from Esav’s potential sexual advance and Esav, according to this Midrash, wanted to kill his mother. In both cases one need not subscribe to Freudian psychology to note the complicated involvement each had with their mothers. In any event, perhaps their very strength of character is what makes them go beyond the parameters of the more typical mother-child relationship. They both also understood that their fathers’ favor would be a major weapon in inheriting both the legacy and the leadership. All of this, then, fits into a general personality type – one that is characterized by strong will and a natural attraction to leadership.

(34) Having a very strong will makes it more difficult for an individual not to claim more rights and privileges than the others surrounding him would. This attitude isn’t engendered merely out of a sense of entitlement; it also stems from a feeling that as a natural born leader he can do more with human and material resources than others. There is ample room here to say that we are dealing with the temptation of such a personality to claim the Nietzschean prerogative to that which his superior nature “entitles” him. For Esav this translates into a right to kill his brother when the latter gets in the way of his plans. It also translates into choosing multiple wives in a household where this is not the norm. Furthermore, given Esav’s clear interest in pleasing his father, choosing wives of whom he knew his father would disapprove could only have come from a sense that he absolutely needed them to suit himself and satisfy his desires.

(35) It is evident that Yosef also had a very strong will. Accordingly, when the rabbis tell us that Yosef did not give in to sexual immorality, they elaborate on how difficult it was for him to resist the allures of Potiphar’s wife.¹²⁸See Sotah 36b. The situation would have made this a challenge for anyone, but it appears from the Midrash that Yosef’s personality may have made it even harder still. And although Yosef’s inclination to murder is not as obvious, his relish for power and control is apparent to all. Besides recounting his dreams, when he finally attains power over his brothers in Egypt, the ease with which he manipulates them shows a sense of entitlement that allows him to play with the lives of others – something which is theoretically only a few steps removed from premeditated murder.

(36) In light of the rabbinic literature we have just explored, it is now easier for us to comprehend how Yosef’s ability to confront Esav stems from the former’s ability to understand the latter. It also illustrates the tremendous willpower required to take on a competitor equally determined to come out on top.

(37) With this in mind, we can understand an otherwise difficult statement of the rabbis chastising Yosef for telling Pharaoh’s wine steward to speak well of him to Pharaoh.¹²⁹Bereshit Rabba 89:3. Ostensibly, Yosef was simply doing what was expected and using all the means at his disposal to ameliorate his situation. The problem instead lay in how Yosef framed the situation. What was he thinking when he asked the steward to remember him to Pharaoh? It is clear that if he could claim a favor from Pharaoh’s servant, the latter would simply become a ticket out of jail. In fact, there is no indication that Yosef was thinking anything else when he asked him to speak to Pharaoh.

(38) Had Yosef actually been concerned about the well-being of his cellmates, his behavior might have been quite different. For instance, would he have told the head baker about his disastrous fate so readily? At the very least, would he not have offered him some comfort? With regard to the wine steward, then, the rabbis seem to be troubled by Yosef objectifying him. And that is precisely the issue at the heart of the Amalekite perspective.

(39) The characteristics Yosef and Esav share require great discipline and self-control. The interface between Israel and Amalek is ultimately between one who manages to control his negative impulses and one who does not. So while Yosef admittedly had these tendencies and their accompanying challenges, he was ultimately able to remake himself into the righteous leader that forgave and comforted his brothers. According to the rabbis, in the end, only a man who can work up the same type of self-concerned hatred as Esav and nevertheless subdue his impulses can stand up to an Esav. Such a man would confront his adversary by saying, “I understand you. I know what you’re feeling. But acting upon that feeling only happens because you don’t see that others also exist – and that they exist not only for your benefit.” It is such a personality that will ultimately stop an Esav bent on violent revenge.

(40) Yosef himself was unable to develop the complete self-control needed to finally defeat Esav. The perfection of this trait would be realized only with his descendants, perhaps starting with Yehoshua. Conversely, the lack of self-control in the face of ego would not be fully realized with Esav. That would happen only with his descendant Amalek. When Yehoshua fought against Amalek, it represented a second and not completely conclusive round. The final round will apparently occur only far in the future, in messianic times (Obadiah 1:15–21).

(41) Amalek and Yosef

(42) The Midrash mentioned earlier asking why Yehoshua should be the one to fight Amalek makes a linguistic connection between Yehoshua’s ancestor Yosef’s proclamation that he feared God and the description of Amalek as not fearing God. Though the connection need not be more than linguistic, Rabbi Baruch Epstein presents a deeper notion very much in consonance with our understanding. He points out that when Yosef said he feared God, he said it as an Egyptian, not as a Jew. He was proclaiming that such an attitude is expected from Jew and non-Jew alike (Torah Temimah on Shemot 17, note 5). Only someone who speaks about what is expected from everyone, and who lives by it, can impose it on others.

(43) Hence the connection between Yosef on the one hand and Esav and his descendants on the other does not only involve a question of understanding similar strong-willed personalities, it also involves Yosef’s particular interest in universal morality. As a benevolent viceroy in Egypt, it is he who designed the model of a Jewish leader in a foreign land, one who tries to promote a more moral vision for all mankind.¹³⁰See, for example, the famous Midrash (Tanchuma, Miketz 7) wherein Yosef orders the Egyptians to circumcise themselves. And since Amalek represents a moral threat to the gentiles – who are more susceptible to his influence – even more than he does to the Jews, he would be of particular interest to Yosef.

(44) The moral fear of God broadcast by Yosef is universal. Nevertheless, it can be seen as part of the Jewish mission. Although Yosef predated the actual establishment of the Jewish nation, it was he who proclaimed fear of God to the world. Likewise, in the fight of all decent people against Amalek, it would be a Jew and a descendant of Yosef who would need to continue to proclaim it to the world – this time not with words but with actions.

(45) Yehoshua the Conqueror

(46) The previous section sought to explain Yehoshua’s involvement with Amalek based on his past, i.e., his ancestry. But the most immediate reason Yehoshua needed to know about Amalek has more to do with his future than his past. Upon entering the land, Yehoshua (and specifically carrying the name Yehoshua and not his previous name, Hoshea) would be leading many battles, both great and small. Among the battles that presumably lay ahead was that against Amalek. Furthermore, beyond that specific battle, it appears that there was something more general in the struggle against Amalek that Yehoshua needed to apply to the conquest of all of Canaan.

(47) Lest one object that at the time of the war against Amalek recorded in the Torah, when Yehoshua was designated to continue the struggle against Amalek, it had not yet been decreed that Yehoshua would lead the Jews into the Land of Israel, the rabbis have already pointed out that God’s omniscience forced His own hand here. Out of the need to prepare the Jews for dealing with Amalek, He gave them the first inkling of Yehoshua’s eventual succession of Moshe.¹³¹Tanchuma, Beshalach 28. It was probably not even noticed at the time. Yet in hindsight, it was critical for the future conqueror to connect to this experience in real time.

(48) The lessons of Amalek represent a very important warning to any Jewish military leader, Yehoshua being only the first. It is easy to uphold the highest standards of war during peacetime, but it is quite another for them to be upheld by a desperate general whose only chance to win lies in his willingness to fight a dirty war. Even a general who is not so desperate will sometimes be tempted to cut corners.

(49) Everyone knows that war is a nasty business, and it is difficult to imagine that morality and rules have any place in it. Yet even in the midst of the horrors of war, the Torah maintains that there is a need to maintain a basic respect for what it means to be human. This translates into a code of behavior that tells us that expediency is not everything, even when dealing with mortal enemies. Many niceties that exist in peacetime are placed to the side, and a thinner, emergency-footing morality sets in, but this is very different from the waiving of morality altogether.

(50) As Israel’s first true military leader, it was essential for Yehoshua to understand Amalek as the anti-model. After all, we learn from our competitors. Amalek proved to be the most effective of all the armies that Israel would encounter on the way to its land.¹³²In this regard, also see Tanchuma, Chukat 18. There is no doubt, then, of the temptation to learn how war should be fought specifically from them.

(51) Amalek’s example is particularly enticing for someone descended from Yosef. In fact, many of his later descendants who ruled the northern kingdom of Israel would live by the notion that the ends justify the means. In such governance, everything is subordinated to the success of the state. If the leaders of the northern kingdom did not exactly stoop to the depths of Amalek, the road they traveled had many similarities.

(52) For several reasons, then, we can understand God’s unique and emphatic language when instructing Moshe to communicate Amalek’s derelict status to his eventual successor: “Place it into the ears of Yehoshua.”¹³³In Chapter Eight we discuss a very similar expression, “to place words into someone’s mouth” (see pp. 110–111). Much of what we say there applies here as well. It is apparently not enough for Yehoshua to merely be told about it. He needs to internalize it; it has to go into his ears. Below, we will see just how important this would be.

(53) The Ultimate Cutting of Tails

(54) The final link in the story of Yehoshua and Amalek is very subtle. The uncommon verb based on the Hebrew word for tail that we discussed above is repeated only once more in the entire Tanach, specifically from the mouth of Yehoshua (Yehoshua 10:19).

(55) Five powerful kings have arrayed themselves to fight against the Jews in order to forestall the latter’s imminent conquest of their lands. But rather than fight Yehoshua’s army they pick on his weak ally, the Giv’onim (Gibeonites). In response to his helpless allies’ cry of distress, Yehoshua gives his strange command. He stops the sun, then orders his own troops, “vezinavtem otam,” which is usually understood to mean they should chase their enemies.

(56) As we learned, however, the verb more specifically denotes either an attack on a camp’s rear guard or the act of castration. This might lead one to think that in spite of the precautions taken by God and by Moshe, Yosef’s warrior descendant was simply unable to overcome this difficult temptation. Given the lowly stature of his opponents, it would have been tempting to forget about the Divine image that existed even in these despicable enemies.

(57) Thankfully, this reading lacks evidence in both text and tradition. Moreover, the use of the root z-n-v seems to go virtually unnoticed, as if the command vezinavtem were just another tactic of war. Yet the word was chosen specifically in these two contexts and nowhere else in all of Tanach, which indicates that something is being communicated to the attentive reader.

(58) Perhaps one can understand the tie-in in a different fashion: That what God and Moshe were teaching Yehoshua from the initial battle with Amalek is that there are two types of nations. Most nations (one hopes) live with at least a modicum of fear of God, and thus this is the default. The laws of war apply to those nations because fear of God represents a minimal internalization of what it means to be human. Relations with such nations are determined by many things, but their annihilation is simply not an option.

(59) Not so, however, with nations such as Amalek, who have forfeited being considered created in the image of God. And those concerning whom Yehoshua commands his troops to “cut off their tails” seem to have a definite Amalekite character. They were behaving like Amalek, essentially showing that they lacked the fear of God and thus thought of other humans beings as mere objects – made, like beasts, for human use. At that point Yehoshua tells his troops to treat this particular opponent the way it would treat others – no differently from beasts.

(60) * * *

(61) The scary thing about Amalek is that he is human. Moreover, given the many atrocities committed throughout history, we see that the path of Amalek is uniquely human, displaying behavior that we see from no other living creature. It shows the alter ego of our unique Divine image and our complete freedom to choose even the most despicable actions. Yet as we have discussed, the story of Amalek and his spiritual descendants is also the story of those who completely deny their Divine image. The Torah wants us to be quite clear of that.

(62) We have seen that even being Jewish does not immunize us from following in Amalek’s footsteps. Not only does a leader such as Yehoshua need to be prevented from emulating Amalek, proper conduct in wartime had to be pushed onto him. If someone as great as he needed to be inoculated from sinking to the depths of an Amalek, we can only assume that the way of this quintessential enemy of Judaism is not completely foreign to us either. As important as the perpetual vigil against the outer Amalek may be, the vigil against the inner Amalek may be more important still.