Q&A: Following the podcast with Jeremy Fogel about genocide
Following the podcast with Jeremy Fogel about genocide
Question
In a discussion about a year ago, you tried to explain to Jeremy that perhaps the Amalekites had some quasi-deterministic mechanism of educating their children to destroy Israel.
First question — why, already in Saul's time, did God not give a command to cut off that deterministic chain by at least not killing the infants of Amalek (who had not yet been educated to kill Jews)?
You yourself said that the Sages did in fact sublimate this, so why didn't God simply give a more limited command? What is the rationale for killing infants if the determinism can be cut off by a simple command?
Second question: even if people try to explain the destruction of Amalek rationally from a moral standpoint (which also seems implausible, as the first point shows) — why was there a need to kill the Amalekites' animals?
How are the Amalekites' animals connected to the deterministic chain of murdering Jews?
And in the story of Saul, you can't argue that "everyone understands the Hebrew Bible differently." The things in the story are simple and clear to anyone who reads it, and there's no need to go looking for "Hebrew Bible experts" who can play with the text to save the situation.
Answer
The Torah's command is a principled one: evil that cannot be eradicated without total destruction should be destroyed. If there are other ways, then of course it is proper to use them. The Torah generally does not go into practical details, but rather lays out general principles, and the Sages fill them in on their own.
Therefore, descendants of Haman's descendants (Amalekites) studied Torah in Bnei Brak. The fact is that they were not destroyed and were even accepted as converts.
As I understand it, killing the animals is a symbolic and educational act of eradicating evil, as with an idolatrous city. Killing does not necessarily involve suffering, so this is not necessarily disregard for animal suffering.
As for learning from the Hebrew Bible, "an eye for an eye" is also a very clear instruction. So I do not accept your comment. Beyond that, I am speaking about the narrative part of the Hebrew Bible and not Jewish law. And third, you do not know what circumstances prevailed then in Saul's time. Copying the instructions from there to every other place and time is an interpretive move that is certainly not necessary.
Discussion on Answer
I answered and will not answer again. Next time it's worth reading before insisting.
As for the animals, I answered that too. And even if it involves some suffering, just as they are killed for food they can be killed for an educational purpose. I don't see a difference. And anyway, before you ask about the Amalekites' animals, ask about the sacrifices in the Temple, and about eating meat
Regarding the animals, as I presented empirically — it is very likely that suffering was indeed caused to them.
So you went to the position that yes, it is not moral, but it is God's command for educational reasons. There's nothing new here in terms of the ways God acts. One can say that about many other things too.
As for killing babies in Saul's time, you answered: "You do not know what circumstances prevailed then in Saul's time."
That is an answer I would call, at best, bargain-basement apologetics.
Regarding the babies in Saul's time — you didn't answer. I'll ask again: what circumstances could possibly allow killing babies who have committed no crime and who, at this point in their lives, are also not expected to sin against Israel in the future if they receive proper education?
I didn't say the instructions should be copied. I asked about the command in the Hebrew Bible in Saul's case.
Regarding the animals — this is a factual question.
The question whether there is any suffering during the fastest possible killing of an animal (say, decapitation) is an ontological question that we do not have a 100% certain answer to, but apparently there is a relatively high degree of certainty. We do know that according to observation, more than once, animals suffer for a few brief seconds, and even if we don't see suffering being caused, it is still possible that suffering was caused and we simply didn't see it. This is also one of the reasons slaughter is banned in Europe.
So even if the killing was carried out in the fastest possible way, killing the Amalekites' animals caused suffering. And in all likelihood it also included separating animal families even before the killing, since it's impossible to kill them all in one stroke.
Or in other words, the question about the moral problem of killing the animals still stands.