The sacrifice of an Amalekite male
Peace to the honorable Rabbi Michi,
In “Moves Among the Standing,” the rabbi argues that it is possible to give moral validity by providing a rational explanation for the destruction of the Amalekites. The rabbi reasons this by saying that the Amalekites may have posed a real, and even potential, danger to the Jews (p. 80).
On page 418, the Rabbi attributes the word “male” (” He wiped out the male of Amalek”) to the physical death of Amalek.
So, why was it that when Saul destroyed the Amalekites, he was instructed not to spare the Amalekites’ animals?
This does not fit with the two things I mentioned in the Rabbi’s name above.
Best regards, Ehud
I didn’t understand what was difficult. The destruction of the animals is not because they are a danger to Israel, but as an illustration to Israel of how much no trace of Amalek should remain. Motivation to fight and also an educational illustration of the positive destruction of evil.
Rashi/Radak do indeed interpret this way, and it does correspond to the second thing that the rabbi believed.
But regarding the moral issue, I see no reason to destroy the animals (as opposed to destroying the people themselves, which have the constant potential to fight the Jewish people), since it is unlikely that the Amalekites' animals would harm us.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
