Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

11

Rashi to Shmuel Aleph 15:3 explains that the Amalekites were sorcerers and were capable of disguising themselves as animals - and for this reason Shaul was commanded to kill even the animals. In his commentary to Devarim 25:19 he brings another explanation: The eradication of the memory of Amaleik had to be absolute, and even if animals remained alive they ...


10

According to Maimonides (Hil. Melachim 6:4), the obligation to kill Amalek only applies to those Amalekite communities that refuse to accept the terms demanded by the Jewish king (including the acceptance of the seven Noahide laws). Those communities that accept these terms are not to be harmed, even Amalekites. (As the Kesef Mishneh puts it, by accepting ...


10

I think there may be a few misconceptions at work here. The Torah does not tell us to "love" the Egyptians, just (as DoubleAA pointed out in a comment) to not abhor them (Deut. 23:8) - which, as the Torah goes on to say in the next verse, means that we are to allow the grandchildren of Egyptian converts to freely intermarry into the body of the Jewish ...


9

The Chidushei HaGriz (§ 161) comments that the narrative between Shmuel and Shaul is a basis for the Rambam's opinion in 6:4. In verse 18, Sh'mu'el says that Sha'ul was told to destroy אֶת-הַחַטָּאִים אֶת-עֲמָלֵק: And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said: Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be ...


7

Maybe this is why Rashi (to 25:19) understands זכר in a more concrete sense: it doesn't mean eradicating "their memory" in the abstract, but "anything which is a remembrance of them" - i.e., as he says, any person from that nation or anything that ever belonged to them. That we'll still remember them annually isn't a contradiction to that. (Incidentally, ...


7

In one of his talks, the Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l explains: The Splitting of the Sea was the first intimation that the physical and the spiritual could combine (which ultimately became a reality a few weeks later, at the Giving of the Torah), since "the sea" represents the spiritual worlds that are hidden from our ken (like the depths of the ocean), while ...


6

The Gur Aryeh says that all the other miracles Yisro saw were localized, but these miracles affected the whole world. Rashi (Shemot 14:21) previously stated that all the water in the world split when the sea split. Rashi (Shemot 17:12) also says that during the war with Amalek, Moshe stopped the sun from setting. When Yisro saw that all the water split, ...


6

The Baal HaTurim on Shemot 23:5 breaks the verse down into separate commandments for a Jewish enemy and a non-Jewish enemy: non-Jewish Enemy - "You shall refrain from helping him" (as a statement, not as a question, like Rashi interprets it) Jewish Enemy - "You shall surely help him"


5

Sefer Moshav Zekeinim end Parshas Beshalach brings it in the name of a Medrash, however does not indicate where this Medrash is.


5

This is addressed directly in the link to Rashi you provide: [Midrash Aggadah , Yalkut Shimoni from Midrash Yelammedenu . Note that in these sources, the Amalekites changed their dress as well, and that version is found also in the Reggio edition of Rashi . The Yemenite manuscript, however, conforms with our reading. See Chavel fn. 87, Yosef Hallel , ...


5

The Maskil LeDavid on this Rashi asks the same thing. If changing clothes is easier, than why didn't the Amalekim do it? He gives an answer that he admits is a stretch. He says that it is possible that they didn't change their clothes because they had some kind of witchcraft in their clothes, and didn't want to give that up. [My note - Rashi in Shemot 17:9 ...


5

The fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe spoke at a Simchas Torah (1915) farbrengen regarding Germany and Kaiser Wilhelm. [One of the things said then] was "I know him already for thirty one years. He is Amalek and his end must be obliterated."


5

Like all Torah commandments, "timche et zecher amalek" has a clear halachic definition. Rashi (Devarim 25:19) tells us what "zecher amalek" means: "From man unto woman, from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep" (translated from Artscroll Rashi) Similarly, Rambam writes (Hilchot Milachim 1:1) 'ולהכרית זרעו של עמלק שנאמר 'תמחה את זכר עמלק - ...


5

What's right or wrong is dependent on the will of God, which may differ in differing situations. King Saul had clearly been (by Samuel) told to kill all the animals, and he disobeyed. King David was given no such order; in fact, the Urim V'Tumim told him "go save!" (hatzel); the same language used in v.18, he "saved" that which had been taken. As to ...


5

From vv. 18-19, it seems that David only took back what the Amalekites had previously plundered (and per verse 16, that was from the Jews and, lehavdil, from the Philistines): יח וַיַּצֵּל דָּוִד, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר לָקְחוּ עֲמָלֵק; וְאֶת-שְׁתֵּי נָשָׁיו, הִצִּיל דָּוִד. יט וְלֹא נֶעְדַּר-לָהֶם מִן-הַקָּטֹן וְעַד-הַגָּדוֹל וְעַד-בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת, ...


5

The impetus for the drasha in the medrash is specifically because the first nation the spies mentioned was amalek, and as the ikar sifsei chachamim explains why not mention the amori and chiti who live in the mountains first, must be they were trying to scare klal yisrael with the bad memory as the medrash continues with the mashal of the child who got hit ...


4

Another answer is provided by the Zera Yackov The Gemara in Yevamous says: רעה תבא למקבלי גרים The Tosfos Ri says on this That we send him away or accept him Right away but if he keeps asking we accept him as we see that Avraham Yitzchok and Yackov did not accept Timna when she came to convert so she went and became a concubine for Elifaz the son of Eisav ...


4

I don't think it's really contradictory. One is on a national level, and one is on an individual level. If you find out someone is from 'Amalek and then kill him, you are guilty of murder. (I think so, anyway; I stand open to correction by the community.) Secondly, the Mitzvah is to wipe out 'Amalek, particularly the memory of 'Amalek, not necessarily to ...


4

As far as more recently recorded descendants, don't forget that the Gemara (Gitin 57b) says that Haman's descendants taught Torah in Bnei Brak (or small children, depending on which version you follow). Although our texts do not reveal who these descendants of Haman and Sisera were, the text available to the early commentators apparently did. The ...


4

R' Rachmiel Zelcer in סימן יב of his נר למאה on פורים cites the צפנת פענח on מסכת סופרים: The name of Agag, king of Amalek, was in fact Hamdata. And "Agag" is actually the title for kings of Amalek. So why does the מגילה call Haman an Agagite (instead of Amalekite)? Since Sanherib mixed up all the nations, we can't be certain that any individual is in fact ...


4

Rashi notes to verse 1 that he interprets this psalm as about Amalek in the future: And I say: "למנצח עלמות לבן", this song is about the future, when the youth and earliness of Israel will be brightened, their righteousness revealed, and their redemption brought, when Esav and his progeny are erased, as per our Torah. It is not uncommon to find, in ...


4

Minchas Chinuch 527 writes that the rules of any milchemes mitzva apply to Amalek: whether that means you allow them make peace before annihilating them is, he says, a machlokes rishonim.


3

Per the Pesikta Rabosi Parsha 13 - Once Shaul was the king, Amalek can only be eradicated completely by the children of Rachel. The other kings were from the children of Leah.


3

Haman is called an Agagite to link him directly to the failure of Saul to kill Agag before he could reproduce. Mordechai and Saul were both of the tribe of Benjamin and it is literately significant that one Benjaminite avenges the failure of another. That is why it is specified that he is an Agagite and not a mere Amalekite. I have also heard that Mordechai ...


3

I don't remember the source, but one of the earlier understandings of "wipe out the memory of Amalek" is that it is a euphemism which means that you wipe out the descendants and people. Meaning, if they have no children, they have nobody to remember them. One could tie this to Yizkor as a concept. I don't like that answer, because the Torah would not ...


3

The simple answer to this is really very simple. Just because Shaul attacked and killed every person that he was able to find, doesn't preclude the fact that people were able to hide, and survive, or escape and regroup later. Our own history is testament to this fact.


3

No one knows for sure since no reason is given in the text (the T'anach/the Bible). Therefore the question is open to conjecture within the commentaries and midrashim. @msh210 gives an answer from the commentaries of Rabbi Moshe Alshich. Another answer: it was "professional courtesy" -- while Saul was willing to kill the people, he decided to spare his ...


2

If I understand him correctly, Alshich explains as follows. Shaul thought the words "והכיתה את עמלק", "smite Amalek", referred to the people, but not the king, who is referred to as "Amaleki" (see e.g. verses 3, 15, 20). He made this mistake because the yetzer hara was influencing him heavily so as to save his nation, Amalek (for the yetzer hara is the sar, ...


2

The shiur that was referenced states that the reishish chochma says that Mordechia donned sak (sackcloth) which is gematria 400 to counteract Eisav (who attacks the Jews with 400 men). The sak leads to tzayis (listening) which is gematria 500. The magid shiur then pairs this with the pasuk (in ki sisa) kach lecha besamim mor dror (mordechai) chamesh meos ...


1

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 ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible