5

I apologize in advance if this comes across as provocative. That is not at all my intention; I ask simply to learn.

"Kill the infidels" is a phrase often used to describe Islam's stance on disbelievers - chop their heads off, poke their eyes out, and other gruesome forms of death.

Although Judaism does not invite such severe forms of killing, they seem to believe in the similar principle of join us or die.

Rashi to Shemos 17:16 says that "as long as Amalek's memory endures, Hashem's Name and His throne are not complete." Seemingly what he is referring to is the oft-quoted statement that Amalek stands against everything Judaism is for - namely, expressing Hashem's Presence in the world. As such, we cannot exist side by side. It's for this reason that R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas Rav Aharon, Vol. 4 pg. 137-8, explaining Sanhedrin 20b) says that we had to wipe out Amalek before building the Beis HaMikdash - as the Beis HaMikdash brings the Shechinah to the world and Amalek strives to remove it from the world, we had to destroy Amalek in order for the Beis HaMikdash to be built.

Isn't this a little extreme? In general, we have an obligation to extend peace to the nations we attack (Devarim 20:10ff), yet nowhere do we find that this applies to Amalek.1 Why is this so? Because Amalek refuses to acknowledge Hashem's sovereignty, that gives us a right to kill them? Let them get their due when Mashiach comes and the nations are punished for their sins (see AZ 2a-3b). Why can we not keep our Beis HaMikdash to ourselves and let them keep to themselves?

Had the sources said they attacked first, therefore we could attack back, that would be one thing; we find a similar discussion by Midian (Bamidbar 26,31). But that's not why we're allowed to kill Amalek, according to the above; it's because they're anti-HaShem. Why is that license to kill?

1 I am aware that Rashi to Devarim 20:10, citing Sifrei there, explains this passage as referring to optional wars, of which Amalek clearly is not, and so this point would not apply. However, the Ramban to the above passuk, as well as Rambam (Malachim 6:1,4) hold that it applies to obligatory wars as well, and thus at least according to them this point would stand. When one is supposed to call out for peace is not for this post; those curious may refer to Sefer HaChinuch 527, Tosfos to Gittin 46a, and Yerushalmi Sheviis 1:6. Also see the above Ramban inside for how he defends himself against the Sifrei.

DonielF
  • 34,262
  • 4
  • 40
  • 143
  • 1
  • the 7 nations were allowed to surrender, under certain circumstances. Only Once that time passed we must kill them. 2) what else do you do with conquered nations. That doesn't mean there is a commandment to conquer the whole world.
    • – Menachem Mar 20 '17 at 03:12
  • I just saw a malbim that can provide some insight but the hour is late. I will also try to look up the chinuch as well. Also Yasher Koach on your Dolphinim question! – TrustMeI'mARabbi Mar 20 '17 at 03:52
  • Given the concept of ger toshav and Noachide, the answer to your title would be no. – sabbahillel Mar 20 '17 at 04:08
  • 2
    re: the use of the word "infidels" -- disbelievers in what? A Noachide is not a believer in Judaism but certainly isn't killed. – rosends Mar 20 '17 at 09:48
  • 3
    where do you see a commandment to enslave the rest of the world? From the bit about optional wars? But aren't optional wars .... optional? Isn't it then at least misleading to claim that we are 'commanded to enslave the rest of the world'? – Jay Mar 20 '17 at 15:42
  • To all of your questions, I have fleshed out my proof from Tosfos a little more, and I have also added another proof from the halachos of eved kena'ani. – DonielF Mar 20 '17 at 15:59
  • Re Amalek - Refer to the method Samuel used to kill King Agag. Sounds like he "chopped" the man's body. The English translation "hewed him to pieces" is probably a poor translation, though. Re the 7 nations, it does say to destroy their idols. I don't think the Torah says to kill the people, but rather to exile them. If they don't cooperate, there may be permission to kill them. – DanF Mar 20 '17 at 16:06
  • Amalek is called out as a special case because of what they did; for nobody else are we to not only obliterate them but obliterate their memory. I think your question would be stronger if you didn't invoke Amalek and focused instead on the other cases you brought up. – Monica Cellio Mar 20 '17 at 16:11
  • @DanF The passuk says "do not let any life live." That sounds pretty straightforward to me. – DonielF Mar 20 '17 at 16:15
  • @MonicaCellio I understand well that Amalek is a unique case. I'm just providing all information that may be related to the topic. – DonielF Mar 20 '17 at 16:15
  • Re the 7 nations... If you lay siege to a city, you need to leave an escape route. I think that's most relevant is that the same G-d who brought us the laws of Amaleiq and the 7 nations also brought civilization to the area via Sancheirev -- a man who destroyed national identities and made those laws inapplicable. It would therefore seem to me the law is less about "kill the infidels" and more "kill the barbarian tribes who would otherwise do worse to you and each other"! – Micha Berger Mar 22 '17 at 10:36
  • pole their eyes out?? where was this mentioned?? – Casanova Apr 12 '17 at 14:38
  • @Danno at least according to many opinions a Noachide is indeed a believer in Judaism. He just isn't ethnically Jewish. – Daniel Apr 13 '17 at 13:55
  • @DoubleAA As per recent edits, can you clean out the comments that no longer apply? – DonielF Jun 25 '17 at 03:14
  • First you should mention Mordechai's decree on killing women and kids. Second, I object the confusion b/w Judaism de-jure and Judaism de-facto. Most people, seemingly you included, see the development of Judaism as "the only possible", presenting later Poskim and interpreters as solely "clarifying" Judaism. It is not true. Every Posek is measured by the measure of his acceptance / popularity with the people, and any Posek can haul Judaism practically anywhere, providing his own interpretations to the Torah. – Al Berko Apr 02 '19 at 15:52
  • Think about Bar Kochba and the greatest Rabbis following him. So if a Rabbi comes and develops a theory that, say, the Palestinians are all Amolekites, and the Mitzvah is eternal and now is the time of the holy war, I don't know what in Judaism can stop the people from going out and slaying people just as SOME Arabs do. After all, their tradition spinned off from ours. – Al Berko Apr 02 '19 at 15:55
  • Please include that portion of Megilat Ester in your question. – Al Berko Apr 02 '19 at 15:57
  • Related on killing infidels: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/101149/purim-fights-were-women-and-children-actually-killed?r=SearchResults&s=15|17.5729 – Al Berko Apr 02 '19 at 15:58
  • @Al 1. When did Mordechai say that all women and children should be killed? The decree was that whoever would come to attack them, including women and children, are able to be killed. That's not kill the infidels; that's self-defense! 2. Also false; modern poskim aren't able to override previous ones, nor could they override the ones before them. If the Torah says we're not allowed to kill the infidels, no later Rabbi can overrule that. – DonielF Apr 02 '19 at 16:03
  • By my response to #2, a Rabbi can't say that the Mitzvah to kill Amalek is eternal, as the Gemara already says it only applies during certain times. 4. Bar Kochba was also technically self-defense: the Romans were oppressing the Jews, so Bar Kochba was fighting back.
    • – DonielF Apr 02 '19 at 16:04
  • It's wishful thinking, anybody can claim "עת לעשות לה'" or just prove otherwise from that very Gemmorah. I just say that if such a Rabbi would raise and others will follow there's no mechanism in Judaism to stop him as everything is left for Rabbis interpretations. – Al Berko Apr 02 '19 at 16:07
  • @AlBerko Again, not everything is left for Rabbi's interpretation, and even that which is, you can't overrule a previous Beis Din unless you're greater in number and wisdom. I'm not sure on the parameters of עת לעשות לה׳ that it applies across the board, but I'm not convinced that it would apply here. – DonielF Apr 02 '19 at 16:09
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Al Berko Apr 02 '19 at 16:59