Thus
of Amalek.
Edom
Amadeo Amalek
THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
483
were united
the related tribes at the end.
airsiiii
Amalek and W. M. 31.
—
In Rabbinical Literature : Amalek the first foe to attack the people of Israel after they had come out of Efrypt us a free nation: twice desif^naled in the Pentateuch (E.. .wii. 14-10. Deut. x.w. 10) as the one against whom war should be waged until his memory be blotted out forever became in rabbinical literature the type of Israel's arch-enemy. In the tannaitic Ilaggadah of the first century Amalek stands for Rome (Bacher, "Ag. Tan." i. 140 H eer/., 211 ct m'f/.); and so does Edom (Esau), from
—
A
whom Amalek deseended (Gen, xxxvi.). kinsman of the Israelites, Amalek nevertheless displayed the most intense hatred toward them: he inherited Esau's hostility to his brother Jacob, Wlien other nations hesitated to harm God's chosen ones, liis evil example induced them to join him in the fray, "Like a roliber he waylaid Israel"; "like a swarm of locusts": "like a leech eager for blood"; "like a fly looking for .sores to feed on " Amalek {'(im Ink th(' peo[)le which licketh) hurried over hundreds of miles to intercept Israel's march:
=
•' Havlnp talicn llic list of the tribes from the archives of Eirypt, tie iirniytMi tiis liusis In from of tlic Isnielitisli cainp— the slu'ltfrinir pillar of chiiut— and called the names of the tribt-s aloud, one after the oilier, and pretendln»f to have business negotiations with theni, lio
over which (iod's plory rested in
ln*acherously Miew llie la.st. or, rather, the pidlty ones anions them, those chosen liy lot " (Tan, Kl Teze, Lx., and Pesik. lli. 'Milt).
to some he also used witchcraft to secure victoiv for his men ("i'alk. Heubeni, and Chronicle of Jeralimeel, xlviii. 13). " Jloreover, he mutilated their bodies, making sport of the Aliraliamie covenant" (.see I'esik. I.r. and Pesik. H. .ii., Mck. J'.eshallah). Evidently the colors for tliis iiicture are drawn fioni tli<' palette of later experience. Accordingly, in rabbinical literature .stress is rather laid on the monil lesson of the episode. Amal<k was but the scourge in the hand of God to punish the people of Isniel, who had become " faint and weary " in the observance of God's eommanils and "feared not God." They laeki-d the power of faith (]dayon the naiue
According
= /•'(/'/ i/iKliii/iiii, "the hands became weak"), and thei-efore said: "Is the Lord among us or not 't" (Ex. xvii. 7. 8). Like a wayward child that luns back to its father when a dog comes snarling along, the Isiaelites were unmindful of God's doings imtil like a dog Amalek came to bite them. Then Moses fasted and prayed, saying: "OLord, " Kcphiiliiu "
who
will in the fulure spr(>ad Thy Law. if Amalek succeeds in destroying this nation':'" And with uplifted arms, holding the stall anil pointing heaven-
ward, he inspired Joshua and the people with his faith until the victory was won (Mek. i/i.). Harsh asst'cms the command to blot out Amalek's
memory, its jnstitieation was seen in the leniency shown by King Saul, the son of Kisli, to Agng, the king of the .iuaU'kites (I Sam. xv. 9), which made it possible for Haman the Atragite to appear (Esth.iii.l) his cruel plot against the Jews could only
counteractiil by another descindant of Kish. Mordecai (I'esik. H. xiii). Eveiy year, therefore, the chapter, " Henn'inber what Amalek did imto thee" (Dent, XXV, 17-I!I), is read in the synagogue on the 111-
Sabbath preceding Purim. With regard to the remarkable oath, "Truly the hand upon the throne of Yah the Lord will have War with .malek froiu generation to generation" !
(Ex. xvii. Ki: .. V. is not litenil here); the rabbis say: " Never will the throne of God the Lord of Truth, Justice, and Lovi be fully established until the seed of Amalek the principle of hatred and wrongdoing be destroyed forever (Pe.sik., I.e.. and
—
— —
—
Y'er, I. and II, to Ex, I.e.). Henceforth " Amabecame the popular term for Jew-hater. -^
Targ. lek "
Critical 'View : Jlodern critics have seen In the genealogy of Amalek a mere indication that Amalek was closely allied to the Edomites, but very inferior in power to them (compare the lowly station of Timna, merely a concubine). In Judges, vi. 3, 33, vii. 12, the mention of Amalek is considered as a later gloss by IJudde. Xijldeke ("Eney. Bil)l."i. 128) considers the account of Saul's expedition to be exaggerated in the figures, and in the geographical definition. Winckler's view ("Gcsch. Israels," p. 211) stands rather isolated. He considers, for example. Judges, iii. 13 as impossible (because the Amalekitesdid not touch upon Jloabitish territory), and regards most pa.s.S!iges iiuoting Amalek as parts of mythological or mythical st<iries (including even
the larger part of the lives of Saul and David). Thus he comes to the conclusion that "probably the nation of Aiualek rests on a mythological idea." On Egyptian and Assyrian monuments, various points of contact with the nomadic tribes of the .Sinaitic peninsula in war or commerce are reported or even represented hitherto, however, the name Amalek has not been discovered on them.
The "from _
territory ascribed to Amalek in I Sam. xv. 7, Ilavilah until thou comest to Sliur." is per-
plexing.
mentioned in and xxv. 18 (hardly that of x. 7) that is, the extreme eastern country of the wandering desert tribes, on the borders of Babylonia then one would have to identify the .Vmalekite territory with northern Arabia, from Egypt to the Euphrates. It wonhl embrace the land of the Midianites and other "sons of the East," but Gen.
ii.
If Ilavilah is the siinie land
11, x. 2!)
(compare
—
I
Chron.
i.
23),
—
would baldly leave room for Edom. Therefore, the modern commentators either understand here another Ilavilah, ortheychimgethc text, So,c.jf.,Wellhausen ("Text der Bdcher Samuelis," p, 97), who changes "from Havilah" to "lui-Telem," that is, "from (the city of) Telem " in Judah (Josh. xv. 24) which (in I Sam. XV. 4) is mentioned as the starting-place of Saul's expedition. Certainly, Amalek appears elsewheie always as an insignificant robber nation, and the siime correction seems necessjiry al.so in I Sam. xxvii. 8, wheie the .malekites (with the Geshurites and Gezrites)are "the inhabitants of the land which [reaches] from Telem (read "mi-Telem" with the better manuscripts of the Septuagint. instead of the traditional "me'Olam" (of old)] as thou goest to Shur. " If this be so, Amalek had no territory east of the Edomites. As to the presence of alleged Amalekitcsin Palestine proper, such colonies have been assumed on the The first passage basis of Judges, v. 14 and xii. 1."). speaks of "Ephraim whose root is in [A. V. "was " in the second, the judge Abdon against "] .Vmalek is stated to have been "bnrii-d in Piralhon [southwest of Shechem]. in file land of Ephraim. in the liillconnfry of the .malekife." The Si'ptuagint. however, in bidli places, seems to have read (at least ill the Coilex Alexandriiius and in the recension of Lucian) "the valley, the lowland {'inuk)" instead of .malek, so that these two passages are, to say The existence of single the least, unsafe authority. Amalekites in the midst of Israel, such as the Amalekite, the "son of astraiiger" (II Sam. i. 8. 13), is not surprising, ainl may possibly explain lheexpre.s.sion "the mount of the .Vmalekites " in Judges, xii. IS, Thus, it is unnecessfiry to assume a northern branch or remnant of the .Vmalekiti'S. .rabic writers have attached great importance to the iiniiie of the Anmlekiles. and have invented many
