Q&A: On the Morality of the Commandment to Wipe Out Midian and Amalek
On the Morality of the Commandment to Wipe Out Midian and Amalek
Question
On the subject of killing the Midianite children, I haven’t found in the classical commentators an answer that makes sense as to why they were killed.
Abarbanel offers two answers: they were judged based on their future, and because of their fathers’ sin.
Both are difficult: from the case of Ishmael, who is judged as he is at that moment (unless perhaps their law is like that of the stubborn and rebellious son?), and from the rule that a man shall die for his own sin.
I’d be glad to hear your view.
Answer
Indeed, this is similar to the stubborn and rebellious son, who is judged on account of what he will ultimately become. I assume that Amalek was a people that educated all its children toward murder, 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 praying that all the Germans should die—old people, women, and children. That sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? The assumption was that there was something corrupt in this people, and therefore there was justification for destroying it from the face of the earth. I assume that this is how the Torah sees Amalek, and therefore commands its destruction.
It should be remembered that Maimonides greatly softens the law regarding Amalek. He rules that when besieging one of their cities, one must first call to them in peace, and not kill them if they make peace. And this is what he writes in Laws of Kings 6:4:
If they did not make peace, or if they made peace but did not accept the seven Noahide commandments, we wage war against them, kill all the adult males, plunder all their property and their children, and we do not kill a woman or a minor, as it says, “the women and the children”—this refers to male children. When does this apply? In an optional war, that is, with the other nations. But regarding the seven nations and Amalek, if they did not make peace, we do not leave any soul alive among them, as it says, “Thus shall you do to all…” and “from the cities of these peoples… you shall not let any soul live.” And similarly it says regarding Amalek, “you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek.” And from where do we know that this speaks only of those who did not make peace? As it says, “There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all the rest they took in war. For it was from the Lord to harden their hearts to meet Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed”—which implies that they had first sent them an offer of peace, and they did not accept it.
However, in positive commandment 188 it sounds like there is an obligation to destroy them all, and with some strain there is room to say that there he is speaking only about the seven nations. But the commentators there did not understand it that way; see there. Therefore it seems that his intention is that the obligation to destroy them all applies only if they did not make peace, and then everyone is killed, including the children. But if they made peace, then not. This still requires further examination.
Discussion on Answer
Why should this depend on understanding? Is there no prohibition against killing a child who lacks understanding? Is there no prohibition of murder regarding an insane person (who certainly has no understanding)?
Since the entire law of war against Amalek depends on their judgment—whether to accept the seven Noahide commandments or not—we have to ask whether children have sufficient understanding to accept the seven Noahide commandments (the war against Amalek is a religious war, not a racial one).
As for children, according to Maimonides in the Guide of the Perplexed regarding the condemned city, there is no prohibition against killing them; on the contrary, they are killed together with their father. In practice, this is quite parallel to the liberal approach of “a woman’s right over her body,” which permits abortions, except that the line of distinction is different.
As for an insane person, one could discuss whether the law of war against Amalek applies to him at all. Perhaps since they have no understanding, there is also no commandment to compel them to accept the seven Noahide commandments, and therefore from the outset there is no reason to wage war against them. In that case, perhaps they revert to the law of an ordinary gentile who does not accept the seven Noahide commandments, whose existence is for utility, and whom we neither bring down nor raise up.
At the time I had a pilpul on this, where I tried to argue that among gentiles there is no fixed bar-mitzvah age; rather, it depends on understanding. If so, with children one has to determine whether they have understanding or not.
As for those who lack understanding, it seems that Maimonides is consistent with his own view regarding the condemned city (against the other medieval authorities, as the Minchat Chinukh brings), namely that minors who lack understanding are under their father’s authority and have no independent existence. Maimonides’ reasoning fits the liberals’ reasoning that permits abortion because of a woman’s right over her body; there too the fetus has no independent existence, and therefore aborting it is permitted. Maimonides is a bit more consistent in defining the human being as an intellectual creature, and therefore extends the child’s dependence on his parents until he has understanding. Perhaps one could argue, according to the liberals, that the fetus has no independent existence before birth, but things are still not clear.