1: "When the LORD your God brings
you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears
away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the
Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations
greater and mightier than yourselves,
2: and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat
them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them,
and show no mercy to them.
3: You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to
their sons or taking their daughters for your sons.
4: For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other
gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would
destroy you quickly.
5: But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars,
and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Ashe'rim, and burn their
graven images with fire.
6: "For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your
God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the
peoples that are on the face of the earth.
16: And you shall destroy all the peoples that the LORD your God will
give over to you, your eye shall not pity them; neither shall you serve their
gods, for that would be a snare to you.
16: But in the cities of these peoples
that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive
nothing that breathes,
17: but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites,
the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD
your God has commanded;
18: that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable
practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin
against the LORD your God.
10: And Joshua turned back at that
time, and took Hazor, and smote its king with the sword; for Hazor formerly was
the head of all those kingdoms.
11: And they put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying
them; there was none left that breathed, and he burned Hazor with fire.
12: And all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took,
and smote them with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them, as Moses
the servant of the LORD had commanded.
13: But none of the cities that stood on mounds did
14: And all the spoil of these cities and the cattle, the people of
Given the importance of this issue in the post-Holocaust
period, I had expected Etz Hayim to deal with it seriously and at length. Regrettably the treatment in Etz Hayim
is inferior even to that in the old, pre-Holocaust, Hertz
Humash. This
is astonishing as its prime source for Deuteronomy - the JTS Commentary by Tigai - has a whole excursus (pp. 470-472) on the subject.
Plaut does a rather better job (Following is quoted from The Torah: A
Modern Commentary by W. Gunther Plaut)
“The
Treatment of Conquered Nations
“The
Torah instructs the Israelites to "doom"
the idolatrous nations in
“An early
attempt was made in Talmudic days. The Hebrew for "show them no pity"
(lo teHannem) was read as "do not grant them [land]," as if the text
read lo taHnem), that is, do not sell real estate to "them-a rendering
which leaned on the warning in Exod.
“The text
has further been defended on the grounds of necessity: unless the native people
were done away with, they would ensnare
“One
comes closer to an understanding of the Torah if one abandons efforts to shield
it from criticism and sees it in the light of its own time, its values, and
standards. "The custom to
'dedicate' an enemy to the deity, or to ban him, or after a victory to
annihilate him, is told us of various Near Eastern nations as well as of the
Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Germans. Since the sensitivities of the ancients
were not offended by the rigor of this procedure, Moses could use this harsh
war practice as a means to shield
“But even
this interpretation does not do the text full justice, for it ascribes to Moses
a point of view which may not have been his at all. Moreover, and most
important: the unyielding tenor of these provisions stands in sharp contrast
to the fact that such a policy of annihilation was, never carried out-the
Canaanites were not annihilated. In fact, in Judg. 3:1, God himself is
said to have abrogated His original command (see above, at verse 22). Later, in
retrospect-taking Deuteronomy to be a post-settlement and not a Mosaic
document-the reader was told that the rampant idolatry which characterized
Israel's history for centuries could have been avoided had the native peoples
been destroyed. Note that the sermon warns the Israelites not to intermarry
with the idolaters -the very idolaters who were supposed to be doomed!
“A proper
understanding, then, would view these passages as retrojections of what could
and might have been, and the sentiments were acceptable in view of the common
practices of the times.”
This last view is well stated by G H Davies in Peake’s
Commentary on the Bible (Nelson 1962)
“Israelites
and their Neighbours- The Levitical preacher returns to his transition theme
and takes his hearers back in imagination to the eve of their entry into the
promised land. He instructs his people in the duties proper to that situation.
They are to destroy their idolatrous neighbours, to have no dealings of any
kind such as commerce or matrimony, and they are to destroy the shrines and
their contents. The command to destroy utterly, that is to put to the ban,
the different peoples of
“It must
however be remembered that the preacher was only laying down what he considered
to be the ideal policy, namely, extermination. In actual fact he was preaching
to people who had long settled in the land, had long lived with these groups
and had frequently been idolatrous. His words show the situation confronting
him. He bids his hearers exterminate idolatry. That is what had not happened.
He then bids his hearers to make no covenants or marriages with them. That is
what in fact did happen. So Deuteronomy faces the problem of
Accordingly
his second solution is the destruction of Canaanite altars with their
accompanying stone and wooden ('ashe'rim) symbols of deity and images. The sanctuaries
are the centres of holiness, blessing amd life for the Canaanites, and to destroy them is to
destroy the life and body of Canaanite religion.”
Tigay also has an interesting discussion in The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy by Jeffrey H. Tigay 1996
“The Proscription of the Canaanites (7:1-2, 7:16and
“According to Deuteronomy
7:1-2,
“In 7:1-2,
“According to
“Modern scholars hold that
this law is purely theoretical and was never in effect. In their view, the
populations of only a few Canaanite cities were annihilated, but most were not.
There is much evidence in favor of this view. Archaeology has found only a few
Canaanite cities that seem to have been destroyed by the Israelites when they
arrived in the land at the beginning of the Iron Age (ca. 1200 B.C.E.). As
noted above, pre-Deuteronomic laws, in Exodus, speak of the Canaanites being
expelled rather than annihilated, and the narratives of Judges, Kings, and
Joshua 15-17 indicate that many were neither expelled nor annihilated but were
spared and subjected to forced labor.3 Some scholars suggest that even
Deuteronomy did not originally require annihilating the Canaanites. In their
view, Deuteronomy's original law consisted only of
“If this is the case, where
did the idea of proscribing the Canaanites come from? The historical books, as
noted, indicate that the invading Israelites did proscribe some Canaanite
cities. Proscription was a well-known practice in the ancient world. One type
of proscription was the religious practice of devoting property, cattle, or
persons (perhaps the victims of sacrificial vows, such as Jephthah's daughter)
irrevocably to a deity, that is, to a sanctuary and the priests, sometimes by
destruction or killing. Another type was punitive proscription, which consisted
of executing those who committed severe offenses against the gods. This type is
prescribed by Exodus 22:17 for individual idolaters, and by Deuteronomy
13:13-18for idolatrous cities. Proscription of enemy armies and populations to
the gods is known from various places in the ancient world. King Mesha of
“Deuteronomy appears to have
inferred from cases like these that the disappearance of the Canaanites was due
to a systematic policy of proscription.
Aware that there were no discernible Canaanites left in Israel, aware
from Exodus and Numbers that the land was to be rid of them, aware of Exodus
22:17,which requires proscription of Israelite idolaters, and mindful of its
own law requiring proscription of idolatrous Israelite cities, Deuteronomy must
have assumed that God, in His zeal to protect Israel from exposure to pagan
abominations, had required eliminating the Canaanites by the same means. It is
interesting, however, that Deuteronomy never speaks of proscribing the victims to
God. It uses proscription in a purely secular way, meaning simply
"destruction." It is not a sacrifice to God but a practical measure
to prevent the debasement of Israelite conduct.
“Traditional Jewish
commentators, as mentioned, do not believe that Deuteronomy means to proscribe
the Canaanites unconditionally. The Sifrei and other halakhic sources reason
that since the express purpose of the law is to prevent the Canaanites from
influencing the Israelites with their abhorrent religious practices (v. 18), if
they abandoned their paganism and accepted the moral standards of the Noachide
laws they were to be spared. Maimonides holds that verse 10 requires that
“These arguments
notwithstanding, it is clear from 7:1-2 and 16 that Deuteronomy's demand for
proscription of the Canaanites is indeed unconditional. The rabbis' rejection
of this view is a reflection of their own sensibilities. As M. Greenberg has
observed, they must have regarded this understanding of the law as implausible
because it is so harsh and inconsistent with other values, such as the prophetic
concept of repentance and the prediction that idolaters will someday abandon
false gods, and the halakhic principle that wrongdoers may not be punished
unless they have been warned that their action is illegal and informed of the
penalty. In effect, they used interpretation to modify and soften the law in
deference to other, overriding principles.”
Annex
Ethically Unacceptable Elements in the Scriptures of
Judaism, Christianity and Islam
|
“Jews,
Christians, and Muslims encourage violence because they refuse to fully
challenge the authority of "sacred texts" that overflow with
violent images of God and stories justifying human violence in God's name…. “Jews, Christians, and Muslims
must address the problem of violence and "sacred" text if we are to
have any reasonable hope for an alternative future. A world being destroyed
by violence, much of it done with justifying reference to God and
"sacred" text, is a world in desperate need of new understandings
of divine and human power. The futility of violence and resiliency of
injustice requires us to unleash our imaginations in order to move beyond religious
certainties into unfamiliar terrain where patriarchal assumptions that
dominate "sacred" texts and political life are challenged in light
of historical need and human experience. … “The violence-of-God traditions at
the heart of the Bible and the Quran have invaded our own hearts. By
sanctioning violence in "sacred" texts and in reference to them, we
invariably progress along a treacherous pathway. God is powerful and proves
to be God through superior violence. The God of superior violence justifies
human violence in the name of God and in pursuit of God's objectives that
with frightening regularity mirror our own objectives. In the end, violence
replaces or becomes God. Violence is widely embraced because it is embedded
and sanctified in "sacred" texts and because its use seems logical
in a violent world.” Quoted from Is
Religion Killing Us?: Violence in the Bible and the Quran -- by Jack
Nelson-Pallmeyer, Trinity Press International 2003
|
See also
Overview of genocide:
recent & biblical times
BIBLE PASSAGES THAT SEEM
IMMORAL BY TODAY'S STANDARDS
What
is the Koran? by Toby Lester
And, on a different topic,
Judaism and Islam
– Influences and parallels
August 15, 2003
The following may be of
interest
The First Word: Are Jews
still commanded to blot out Amalek?
By David Golinkin
“The
Jews defeating Amalek's Army,'Adolf
Fenyes, 1915
Photo: Hungarian
National Gallery
On Purim, we are rightly appalled by Haman's attempt to destroy the Jewish people. Yet we seldom
notice that we are twice commanded to do the same thing to Haman's
people, to Amalek: in Exodus 17, which we read on
Purim morning, and in Deuteronomy 25, which we read on Shabbat Zachor.
In the Haftara
of Shabbat Zachor, the Prophet Samuel orders King
Saul to "attack Amalek … spare no one, but kill
alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and
sheep, camels and asses."
In short, we are instructed to commit
genocide. This is morally problematic in and of itself; it is doubly
problematic after the Holocaust.
During the biblical period, we were
attacked by many peoples. Why blot out the memory of Amalek,
as opposed to other peoples who have attacked us throughout history?
Some rabbis say that Amalek,
by attacking a defenseless bunch of slaves on the road, deviated from the norms
of war. It was an unjust war that offered no conceivable gain, and therefore
was motivated solely by hatred.
Rabbi Avraham
Shmuel Sofer (
DESPITE THE clarity of the biblical
commandment, a number of rabbinic sources express clear discomfort with the
requirement to blot out the memory of Amalek.
Rabbi Mani
says (Yoma 22b) that King Saul argued with
God: If the Torah says that if you find an anonymous dead body between two
cities you must bring a sacrifice as a form of atonement for that one death,
how much the more so all of these souls! And if an Amalekite
sinned, did his animal sin? If adults sinned, did children sin?
Rabbi Ya'acov Haim Sofer (Jerusalem, d. 1939)
asked why we don't recite a blessing before Parashat Zachor on the Shabbat before Purim.
"Because we do not bless regarding
destruction, even the destruction of non-Jews, as we see that God said [to the
angels after the Egyptians drowned in the
This type of discomfort led to
allegorical interpretations of the commandment to destroy Amalek.
The Zohar says Amalek is Samael or Satan, while in
Indeed, the commandment to blot out Amalek is omitted entirely by two of the most important
codifiers of Jewish law - Rabbi Ya'acov ben Asher in hisTur and
Rabbi Yosef Caro in his Shulhan
Aruch. Other important rabbis eliminated the
obligation by explaining that, in our day, Amalek no
longer exists.
Nonetheless, there were many important
rabbis, such as Maimonides and Rabbi Pinhas Halevi of
In 1898, Rabbi Yosef Haim Sonnenfeld refused to go out to greet Kaiser Wilhelm II
when he visited
Rabbi Joseph Dov
Soloveitchik and others say that anyone who hates the
Jewish people is from the seed of Amalek e.g. the Nazis,
the Soviets, Nasser and the Mufti. More recently, Rabbi Jack Riemer has written that the Muslim fundamentalists are Amalek.
Sadly, some Jews have identified other
Jews as Amalek. Rabbi Elhanan
Bunem Wasserman (1875-1941) said that Jews who defy
Jewish law are of the seed of Amalek. Rabbi Yisrael Meir Hacohen, the Hafetz Haim, associated Jewish
communists in
Finally, various Christians have
referred to themselves as
I SHARE the discomfort regarding the
commandment to destroy an entire people, despite the gravity of their original
deed. I agree with the many rabbis throughout history who eliminated this mitzva from their codices, or who said that Amalek no longer exists. We have seen just how dangerous it
is to identify your current enemy with Amalek. The
identification changes over time and place, and is even used by Christians
against us!
Though it would seem that the Amalek story is entirely negative in nature, there are two
positive, ethical lessons which we can learn from it.
In Pesikta
d'rav Kahana, Proverbs
11:1-2 is interpreted that if you use unjust weights and measures, a non-Jewish
nation will wage war against your generation. According to this midrash, Amalek's attack was a punishment for unethical behavior.
Thus, the message of the story is not hatred but repentance. In order to
prevent another Amalek, we must behave ethically.
Professor Nehama
Leibowitz noted that in all four biblical passages
which use the expression, the litmus test for "undeterred by fear of
God" is the attitude to the weak and the stranger. Amalek
is the archetype of the Godless who attack the weak because they are weak, who
cut down the stragglers in every generation.
In our day, perhaps the most important
lesson is not hatred of Amalek but aversion to their
actions. In
The writer is president of the Schechter Institute of
Jewish Studies in
Linda Price
Director of Communications
Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies,
tel: 972-2-6790755, ext. 124
fax: 972-2-6790840
www.schechter.ac.il
www.schechter.edu