Q&A: Killing an Amalekite or Is the Torah True
Killing an Amalekite or Is the Torah True
Question
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cub21ueWNvbnRlbnQuY29tL2QvcGxheWxpc3QvZTFkOGNjMWUtYzc5NS00ODlhLTkyNDQtYWRiZDAwYThlNDMzL2E2MjQxMGQzLWY2MTMtNDA3Yy04N2E0LWFkYmQwMGU5OTQxZC9mOWVkMjkxMy1lNDIwLTQxMjItYTY5YS1hZTBhMDEwNjlhMzMvcG9kY2FzdC5yc3M/episode/YmMzNDgwZmUtNTI0Yi00ZGQ2LWE5ZGQtYWYwYTAwODExNjEz?ep=14
I listened to the podcast with you (really enjoyed it!!) and I had difficulty with what you said. You said that you are not 100% sure that the Torah is true (let’s say only 80% sure for now), and therefore if you had an Amalekite baby in your hands you would not kill him, because that is not moral.
From what you said, I understand that you are more certain that it is immoral to kill an Amalekite than that the Torah is true (say, 90% sure versus 80%). So I don’t understand why you keep the commandments; after all, if it is not right to kill an Amalekite, then the Torah is false, no? And so already now (even without an Amalekite baby) you are more certain that the Torah is false than that it is true.
And if you are keeping commandments only because of the 10% chance that it is in fact moral to kill an Amalekite, then you are running your life based on very remote concerns. Maybe we should also pray to Jesus and Muhammad, on the chance that maybe that is true too.
Thank you very much!!
Answer
It is possible that I would not kill him. Until I am actually in that situation, I cannot answer.
My claim was that I am concerned that perhaps the Torah is not true, but that does not mean I have concluded that it is not true. Extreme things that require complete certainty I might not do, but less extreme things I would. The concern that perhaps the Torah is not true stems from the necessity of carrying out the killing, not from the instruction itself. As with the stubborn and rebellious son, which in practice is not carried out.
Beyond that, the concern that the Torah may not be true does not necessarily mean that the Torah was not given or that it is not from God. The concern is that the Torah itself may not mean that I should kill every Amalekite, not necessarily that it is not true, just as the halakhic decisors themselves softened this in practice. Or because this command is a later addition, or because it was interpreted incorrectly.
Discussion on Answer
According to Maimonides' view, an Amalekite who accepted the seven Noahide commandments no longer has the status of an Amalekite, and it is forbidden to kill him (the positive commandment to keep alive overrides the positive commandment to wipe out). One can say that an Amalekite baby has the status of a doubtful Amalekite, since it is possible that he will grow up and then decide to accept the seven Noahide commandments. This can be compared to a minor convert who was converted by a religious court, whose conversion does not take effect until adulthood, when he decides whether to accept the conversion or not. Here too, the law of Amalek does not apply to the Amalekite baby until he is an adult and decides not to accept the seven Noahide commandments.
“It is possible that I would not kill him. Until I am actually in that situation, I cannot answer” — sorry for butting in among greater minds, but is the explanation of the Rabbi’s words that the Rabbi needs to feel the situation and take into account the emotions that arise, and that an a priori rational decision is not enough for him?
And one more point. The command to kill Amalekites is a halakhic command. It is not supposed to meet the criteria of morality, and it can even contradict them. Therefore even if the Torah commands killing an Amalekite, that does not mean it is moral, but rather that this is what must be done. As stated, my concern is that perhaps this is not what must be done.