Remember Amalek - Part I

Yesterday evening I had a conversation with Asaf about Purim, genocide and hate. That inspired me to write what follows. It got a bit long, so I am breaking it up into several parts.

Monday night marked the start of the holiday of Purim. In fact, it begins earlier. The month of Adar, which contains Purim (and starts two weeks earlier), is considered a particularly joyous month. On the Sabbath before Purim we read a special Torah portion. The day before is called the "Fast of Esther." And, unlike most Jewish holidays which are celebrated for two days in the Diaspora and one day in Israel, Purim is celebrated one day in most of the Diaspora, and two days in Israel. Jerusalem being an ancient walled city gets to celebrate a day later than the rest. Purim, unlike Hanukah, is talked about quite a bit in the Talmud and there is a canonical Biblical book (the Megillah of Esther) which tells the story of Purim. So even if it is a minor holiday, Purim is way more important than Hanukkah. We'll talk about what Jews are celebrating and why the extra day in Jerusalem in a bit.

I always hated Purim. It's sort of the Jewish Halloween - a kids holiday. You get to dress up in costumes and do inverse "trick or treating." Instead of going to people's houses asking for candy, you deliver plates of goodies to other people. Of course, everyone you go to ends up reciprocating, and somehow you always end up with far more sweets than you gave away. Since I was "husky" when I was young, eating sweets was always a guilty pleasure. In the fifties and sixties, overweight kids were the exception not the norm, and always the butt of jokes (pun intended). I was svelte by today's standards of over-weight, yet I knew those extra pounds eating Purim sweets would just result in more ridicule. As for dressing up, I was also a shy kid, and parading around in a costume seemed the worst sort of public humiliation. To this day, I hate dressing up and am not a big sweets eater.

Every year we would put on a musical in our school for Purim. I was in the school choir and in fifth grade I was given a leading role in the play (I was the narrator) which involved several solo songs. The night before my performance I got horribly ill (fever, throwing up, the works) - surprise - and spend several days home in bed (fortunately, the upper classes put on the same play with their own cast, so the girl from that version stood in for me). I remember spending the holiday in bed reading A Cat in the Ghetto a children's book about the Holocaust. Perfect reading for my lugubrious view of the holiday.

As I got older and began to understand what the holiday is about, I began to like it even less. And from my current perspective, I would say it should be ripped from the Jewish calendar. This has nothing to do with my own personal "issues." If all Purim is about is candy and costumes, like Halloween, then I would keep quiet. After all, if people enjoy parading around like fools in silly costumes or stuffing their obese faces with candy and cake, or training their impressionable children to do the same, far be it from me to criticize. My criticism has nothing to do with that.

Let's begin with the verses from the Bible that we read the Sabbath before Purim. There is a Rabbinical injunction that makes it obligatory on every Jew to hear every word of these verses. In our synagogue in Israel they would be read several times in the different cantillations of different Jewish communities - standard Ashkenazi, Germanic, Morrocan, Yemenite. Here are the verses we read (Deuteronomy 25:17-19):

1. Remember what Amalek did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt.
2. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God.
3. And so, when the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall wipe out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!

Lest there be any misunderstanding, the words "wipe out the memory" are not a metaphor. In Hebrew, the word used is "makho timkheh" from the root MKH - to erase. The words are doubled for particular emphasis. This is, in fact, a call to absolute genocide against Amalek. Why was Amalek singled out like this? After all, other nations attacked Israel on the way out of Egypt. Who knows? But the hatred here is visceral.

What is the connection of these verses to Purim? For that we have to take a detour to the first Book of Samuel, chapter 15. I quote the entire chapter below. I love these stories. They are so well written:

1. Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD.
2. This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
3. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
4. So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah.
5. Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine.
6. Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israeliteswhen they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
7. Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt.
8. He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.
9. But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.
10. Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel:
11. "I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.
12. Early in the morning Samuel got up and went to meet Saul, but he was told, "Saul has gone to Carmel. There he has set up a monument in his own honor and has turned and gone on down to Gilgal."
13. When Samuel reached him, Saul said, "The LORD bless you! I have carried out the LORD's instructions."
14. But Samuel said, "What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?"
15. Saul answered, "The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God, but we totally destroyed the rest."
16. "Stop!" Samuel said to Saul. "Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night." "Tell me," Saul replied.
17. Samuel said, "Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel.
18. And he sent you on a mission, saying, Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.
19. Why did you not obey the LORD? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD ?"
20. "But I did obey the LORD," Saul said. "I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king.
21. The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal."
22. But Samuel replied: "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king."
24. Then Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned. I violated the LORD's command and your instructions. I was afraid of the people and so I gave in to them.
25. Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD."
26. But Samuel said to him, "I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you as king over Israel!"
27. As Samuel turned to leave, Saul caught hold of the hem of his robe, and it tore.
28. Samuel said to him, "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors—to one better than you.
29. He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
30. Saul replied, "I have sinned. But please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD your God."
31. So Samuel went back with Saul, and Saul worshiped the LORD.
32. Then Samuel said, "Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites." Agag came to him confidently, thinking, "Surely the bitterness of death is past."
33. But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so will your mother be childless among women."

    And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal.

34. Then Samuel left for Ramah, but Saul went up to his home in Gibeah of Saul.
35. Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel.

I could spend a week analyzing this story, but I will try to stick to the highlights. Samuel goes to Saul and quotes a variant of the verses of Deuteronomy: go kill the evil Amalekites, man, woman, child, sheep, cow and donkey. In Deuteronomy it says nothing about sheep, cows and donkeys. Let's think about this from the perspective of the soldiers involved. In the ancient world, the only reason anyone risked their life and went to war was booty, in all senses of that word. Nationalism hadn't been invented yet nor had religious warfare. True, the Bible says God told the people to go to war. But the soldiers didn't care about that. They wanted land, women, cows, sheep and donkeys (probably in that order). There were quite a number of soldiers involved in this campaign. Remember they had to be fed and armed and so this was quite an expensive venture. How was Saul to convince them to go along? Saying "God commanded," just didn't cut it in the old days. Bad enough they had to kill all the woman, but no way in hell were they going to come home totally empty handed.

Samuel, as a "man of God" who got a cut of all the offerings to the Lord that people sacrificed, didn't have to worry about making a living. So he obviously didn't have much sympathy for the plight of the poor soldier. He wanted the donkeys dead and wasn't going to settle for less. The encounter with Saul is a beautiful study in human psychology. Saul, obviously feeling a bit guilty, try's to avoid meeting up with Samuel, and quickly heads to Gilgal to avoid the prophet. But Samuel, undeterred, follows him there. (verse 12). Realizing the best defense is an offense, Saul greets the prophet with the declaration that he has fulfilled God's command, even though he knows he hasn't (verse 13). Instead of directly confronting Saul, Samuel uses indirect tactics - "what's those sheep I hear?" (verse 14). Saul immediately shifts the blame to the soldiers and simultaneously excuses their behavior by saying their intent was not selfish - they only wanted to bring sacrifices of gratitude to the Lord. He repeats this several times (verses - 15-21).

Now Samuel goes on the offense and strongly chastises Saul for disobeying God's law (verses 22-23). It is interesting to compare Samuel's stilted chastisement, to very similar ones by the later prophets, Isaiah (chapter 1:11-17) for example:

1. "The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
2. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts?
3. Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations— I cannot bear your evil assemblies.
4. Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.
5. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood;
6. wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong,
7. learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.

What bothers Samuel? That Saul doesn't follow the letter of God's genocidal law. What bothers Isaiah? That the people are unjust and oppress the poor and defenseless. What a different moral universe! I'll write more about disobedience on another occasion, but the fact is that in Rabbinic Judaism, unlike say Catholicism, disobedience is not such a big deal. Isaiah's moral perspective is much closer to the Rabbinic one than Samuel's. This is also true regarding what follows.

Realizing Samuel his mentor is terribly angry, Saul confesses his error completely, takes the blame and asks for forgiveness (verses 24-25). Samuel, who chose Saul himself, obviously is heart broken. Nonetheless he tells Saul of God's terrible punishment for his disobedience - the kingship will be taken from Saul's family and given to someone better than him. This is repeated twice, for emphasis. (verses 26-28). He also says the decision is irrevocable, because God is not a man that "he should change his mind." (verse 29)

In Rabbinic Judaism, there is no such thing as an unforgivable sin. The Rabbi's constantly repeat how the most far gone apostate can repent, and his repentance will be accepted even on his deathbed. Surely Saul's complete confession and taking responsibility is worthy of forgiveness? True this is the Bible, not a Rabbinic text, and many Biblical norms are quite different than Rabbinic ones. But there is a glaring lack of consistency here, even within the Biblical book containing this story.

The one who is "better than" Saul and who will usurp him is David. Now David (unlike Saul who was basically a good sort) probably violated every one of the ten commandments and a lot of other commandments besides. Later on in this very same Biblical book, we hear the story of how David lusts after Bat-Sheva, who is a married woman. He sleeps with her and gets her pregnant! So he sends her husband Uriah off to battle so Uriah can be killed off without David having to do the dirty deed himself. Then he takes Bat-sheva to himself. Talk about disobeying Gods law. I mean what David did is low by any moral standard. But Saul lost the kingship because he didn't kill some sheep, for gods sake. Surely David's sin is worse. But does David lose the kingship? Of course not. Sure, Nathan the prophet chastises David, but when David merely utters the words "I have sinned against the Lord" Nathan says "the LORD has taken away your sin." His only "punishment" is that his bastard child will die. So the merciful Lord takes pity on David but kills the child. Soon after Bat-Sheva conceives again, and this child is beloved of God. In David's doddering old age, Nathan conspires with Bat-Sheva to make sure that this second child should become king - king Solomon. King Solomon flagrantly disobeys the rules imposed by God on kings - not to have too many wives or horses (Deut. 17:17). Solomon also builds temples to other gods for his wives. But is the kingship taken away from him? No. After he dies, the kingdom splits in two. But it is the tribes attached to kings not descended from David and Solomon that are lost forever.

And what is all this crap about God not being "like a man" to change his mind? In this very story God changes his mind! After all, he originally chose Saul and now he changed his mind and decided to appoint someone else. Not only that, at the end of the the story it says God "grieves" about that decision, that is, not only did God regret it, but he sulks about it. How human can a God be?

To understand what is really going on here, one needs to go back to the original story of how Saul got appointed. God had it in for Saul from the beginning. Like some whining Jewish mother, God doesn't want the Israelites to have a king at all ("what, I'm not good enough for them?") After much arm twisting, Samuel, as God's spokesperson, finally agrees to appoint a king. But one gets the feeling that God was just waiting for the slightest slip up on Saul's part just so he can say "see, I told you so, having a king was a mistake!" Sure God's reaction is totally disproportionate to Saul's mistake. And God's later behavior vis-a-vis David and his family makes Saul's terrible punishment completely hypocritical. But given God's reluctance to appointing Saul in the first place, the story makes a bit more sense.

Of course, to completely understand what's going on, one needs to go outside the context of the story and into the meta-story. These stories were written down many years after the events they record. They were written by scholars who lived in the courts of kings who were descendants of David and Solomon. No hidden agendas here. The people who wrote these stories were just plain sucking up to the people who fed them. Of course, besides gratitude for their position at court, the alternative ("off with their heads") wasn't too appealing either. So whatever the true story, (and hints of it can be found in the Biblical text: David, like all usurpers, was just stronger and more blood thirsty than the remnants of Saul's family, and he wipes them all out), the idea that King David's dynasty is eternal has become normative in both Judaism and Christianity. After all, the Christian Bible meticulously records how Jesus is a descendant of David, and so the Messiah.

This detour has taken us quite far from the Purim story, at least so it seems. But we'll get back to it in the next installment.

<  |  >