On the morality of the command to destroy Midian and Amalek

שו”ת › Category: general › On the morality of the command to destroy Midian and Amalek

asked 9 years ago

On the subject of the killing of a Midianite child, I have not found in the classical commentators a plausible answer as to why they were killed.
The Abarbanel gives 2 excuses – they were judged for their future, and for the iniquity of their ancestors
And it is difficult for both of them – from the act of Ishmael, who was condemned at the time (and perhaps their judgment was like a rebellious son?), and from the general rule that a person will be put to death for his sin.
I would love to hear your opinion.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 9 years ago

Indeed, it is similar to a rebellious and teacherless son who is condemned to death. I assume that Amalek was a people who educated all their sons to be murderous, and therefore there is justification for killing them even when they are small. The future is clear in advance. Think of a Jew in a concentration camp who prays that all the Germans, old men, women, and children, die. That sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? The assumption was that there was something corrupt in this people, and therefore there was justification for wiping them out from the face of the earth. I assume that the Torah sees Amalek this way and therefore commands their destruction. It should be remembered that the Rambam is very moderate in his judgment of the Amalekites. He rules that one should call them to peace when besieging their city, and not kill them if they have complied. Thus he writes in 1 Kings 6:4: And if they did not fulfill or fulfilled and did not receive the seven commandments, they wage war against them and kill all the great males, and plunder all their wealth and children, and do not kill a woman or a child, as it is said, “And the women and the child are the children of men.” What are the things mentioned in the war of the authority that is with the rest of the nations? But seven nations and Amalek who did not fulfill, they do not leave a soul among them, as it is said, “Thus you shall do to all,” etc. “Only from the cities of the nations not a soul shall live.” And so it says about Amalek, “You shall blot out the memory of Amalek.” And why is it that he is not speaking except of those who did not fulfill, as it is said, “There was no city that made peace with the children of Israel except the Hivites. The inhabitants of Gibeon took everything in the war, because it was from the Lord to strengthen their hearts for the war against Israel in order to destroy them, from all that they sent to them in peace, and they did not receive it. Although in the act of sinning it means that there is an obligation to destroy them all, and there is hardly any room to say that he is speaking here only of the 7 ammin. But the commentators there did not understand it that way, as a result. Therefore, it seems that his intention is that the obligation to destroy them all is only if they have not completed, and then they kill everyone, including children. But if they have completed, then no. And there is a difference in this.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

י.ד. replied 9 years ago

I had a quibble at the time about trying to claim that among the Gentiles there is no age for bar mitzvah, but rather that they follow reason. And since this is the case, it is necessary to inquire into whether children have reason or not.
As for those who do not have reason, it seems that the Rambam, in his opinion in the remote city (against the rest of the Rishonim, as the Minchat Chinuch cites), holds that mindless minors are in the custody of their fathers and do not have self-existence. The Rambam's opinion fits the liberals' opinion that permits abortion because of the woman's right to her body, where the child also has no self-existence and is therefore permitted to abort it. The Rambam is a little more consistent in his definition of man as a rational being and therefore draws attention to the child's dependence on his parents until he has reason. Perhaps it can be argued in the liberals' opinion that the child does not have self-existence before birth, and things are still unclear.

מיכי Staff replied 9 years ago

Why does this depend on knowledge? And is it not forbidden to kill a child who has no knowledge? And is it not forbidden to murder a fool (who certainly has no knowledge)?

י.ד. replied 9 years ago

Since every law of war against Amalek depends on their knowledge of whether or not to accept the 7 commandments of the sons of Noah, one must ask whether they have the knowledge to accept the 7 commandments of the sons of Noah (the war against Amalek is a religious war, not a racial war).

As for the child, according to Maimonides, in the book of Morah Behumim in the remote city, there is no prohibition against killing him, and conversely, they are killed with their father. In fact, this is quite parallel to the liberal approach of the "right of a woman over her own body" that permits abortions, only that the line of distinction is different.

As for the fool, one can discuss whether or not there is even a law of war against Amalek in him. Perhaps because they have no knowledge, there is also no commandment to force them to accept the 7 commandments of the sons of Noah, and therefore there is no point in fighting them in the first place. In this situation, perhaps they revert to the law of an ordinary gentile who does not accept the 7 commandments of the sons of Noah, whose existence is for the benefit and whose existence is neither lowered nor raised.