Shabbat Parashat Beshallach - 5781

Shabbat Parashat Beshallach - 5781

Rabbi Hal Miller

Yehoshua weakened Amalek and its people with the sword blade.

[Shemot 17:13]

Why did Yehoshua not completely destroy Amalek? That would have saved the

world and the Jews a whole lot of trouble in the coming millenia. What does the

Torah mean that he "weakened Amalek"?

Ramban translates our verse, "Yehoshua shattered Amalek and its people with

the sword's blade." This seems to imply that he had them on the ropes and could

have done them in completely, but did not do so. Perhaps Ramban's comment

was in response to his own understanding of 17:9, where he explained that Moshe

feared the nation was incapable of the fight, facing an experienced army while

only just getting free of servitude. He seems to think Moshe reined Yehoshua in

for fear that the people would get out of hand or break entirely if the battle was

extended to accomplish the destruction. But such a position would have been

contrary to the Divine command for the eradication of Amalek, and counter to

normal behavior of soldiers in a winning situation.

Malbim's explanation sidesteps the question, but is still apropos. "There were two

wars going on, the physical one by Yehoshua and the spiritual one by Moshe

against the guardian angel of Eisav. The physical one was of lesser importance,

and once Moshe subdued the angel, Yehoshua's battle ended." Perhaps, then,

Yehoshua thought the destruction was completed by Moshe and no further action

was required, although that seems far-fetched.

Rashi interprets that Yehoshua killed all the strong and left over only the weak,

which does not answer our question either. He adds that "From here we see that

he acted by the word of the Shechinah." Interesting thought, but where did this

come from? Did God tell Moshe or Yehoshua to hold back?

Talelei Oros gives us a simplistic answer, which both stands on its own and

guides us through the various other opinions: "God did not want the people to win

based on a miracle and think that it was because of their own ability." While the

last portion of this comment makes a lot of sense, one has to wonder why God

would not want Yehoshua to succeed in what He commanded.

Ramban places the 'blame' on Moshe in a way that points to the future. Amalek

was the inheritor of Eisav, living by the sword and being a counter to Israel. We

know that when Eisav is dominant, Israel is subservient, and vice versa. Ramban

tells us that when we are able to defeat Eisav, the exile will be ended, in other

words, the Jews then did not fully merit the destruction of Amalek. Rav Hirsch

supports this, adding that Amalek is still necessary for Israel to learn God's ways.

Rav Soloveitchik notes that the Torah also says, "a war for God against Amalek

from generation to generation." Perhaps this is where Rashi found the "word of

the Shechinah." He goes on to explain that there are two "types" of Amalek, and

two commandments regarding Amalek. The nation that descended from the man

Amalek can be physically destroyed, but that leaves those others "that conspire

to destroy Israel", who he also calls Amalek. Thus Yehoshua could not have

completed the task even if he killed every individual of the opposition. The Rav

continues that the first commandment is to blot out the memory, which is against

the people Amalek. The second commandment is to fight "in every generation,

to do battle with those who insist on fighting against God and Israel." This is

against all those not necessarily genealogically descended from Amalek, but

who follow that line of action, just as did the generation of the Tower of Bavel.

God destroyed that earlier generation. Now it is our responsibility to destroy His

enemies as His partner in Creation. Yehoshua was not in a position to do that

with the sword, it takes now our leadership of all mankind.