48 | SEPTEMBER 12 • 2024
I
t is, by any standards, a strange,
almost incomprehensible law. Here
it is in the form it appears in this
week’s parshah: “Remember what the
Amalekites did to you along the way
when you came out of
Egypt. When you were
weary and worn out,
they met you on your
journey and attacked
all who were lagging
behind; they had no fear
of God. 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 blot out the
name of Amalek from under the heav-
en. Do not forget.” Deut. 25:17-19
The Israelites had two enemies
in the days of Moses: the Egyptians
and the Amalekites. The Egyptians
enslaved the Israelites. They turned
them into a forced labor colony. They
oppressed them. Pharaoh commanded
them to drown every male Israelite
child. It was attempted genocide. Yet
about them, Moses commands:
“Do not despise an Egyptian,
because you were strangers in his
land.
” Deut. 23:8
The Amalekites did no more than
attack the Israelites once, an attack
that they successfully repelled (Ex.
17:13). Yet Moses commands,
“Remember.” “Do not forget.
” “Blot
out the name.” In Exodus, the Torah
says that “God shall be at war with
Amalek for all generations” (Ex.
17:16). Why the difference? Why
did Moses tell the Israelites, in effect,
to forgive the Egyptians but not the
Amalekites?
The answer is to be found as a
corollary of teaching in the Mishnah:
“Whenever love depends on a cause
and the cause passes away, then the
love passes away too. But if love does
not depend on a cause, then the love
will never pass away.
What is an example of the love
which depended upon a cause? That
of Amnon for Tamar. And what is
an example of the love which did not
depend on a cause? That of David and
Jonathan.
” Avot 5:19
When love is conditional, it lasts
as long as the condition lasts but no
longer. Amnon loved — or rather
lusted after — Tamar because she was
forbidden to him. She was his half-sis-
ter. Once he had had his way with her,
“Then Amnon hated her with intense
hatred. In fact, he hated her more than
he had loved her.
” (II Sam. 13:15).
But when love is unconditional and
irrational, it never ceases. In the words
of Dylan Thomas, “Though lovers be
lost, love shall not, and death shall
have no dominion.
”
The same applies to hate. When
hate is rational, based on some fear
or disapproval that — justified or not
— has some logic to it, then it can be
reasoned with and brought to an end.
But unconditional, irrational hatred
cannot be reasoned with. There is
nothing one can do to address it and
end it. It persists.
That was the difference between
the Amalekites and the Egyptians.
The Egyptians’ hatred and fear of the
Israelites was not irrational. Pharaoh
said to his people: “The Israelites are
becoming too numerous and strong
for us. We must deal wisely with them.
Otherwise, they may increase so much
that — if there is war — they will join
our enemies and fight against us, driv-
ing [us] from the land.
” Ex. 1:9-10
The Egyptians feared the Israelites
because they were numerous. They
constituted a potential threat to
the native population. Historians
tell us that this was not groundless.
Egypt had already suffered from one
invasion of outsiders, the Hyksos,
an Asiatic people with Canaanite
names and beliefs, who took over
the Nile Delta during the Second
Intermediate Period of the Egypt of
the Pharaohs. Eventually the Hyksos
were expelled from Egypt and all
traces of their occupation were erased.
But the memory persisted. It was not
irrational for the Egyptians to fear
that the Hebrews were another such
population. They feared the Israelites
because they were strong.
(Note that there is a difference
between “rational” and “justified.
”
The Egyptians’ fear was in this case
certainly unjustified. The Israelites did
not want to take over Egypt. To the
contrary, they would have preferred
to leave. Not every rational emotion
is justified. It is not irrational to feel
fear of flying after the report of a
major air disaster, despite the fact
that statistically it is more dangerous
to drive a car than to be a passenger
in a plane. The point is simply that
rational but unjustified emotion
can, in principle, be cured through
reasoning.)
Precisely the opposite was true of
the Amalekites. They attacked the
Israelites when they were “weary and
weak.
” They focused their assault on
those who were “lagging behind.
”
Those who are weak and lagging
behind pose no danger. This was
irrational, groundless hate.
With rational hate, it is possible to
reason. Besides, there was no reason
for the Egyptians to fear the Israelites
anymore. They had left. They were
no longer a threat. But with irrational
hate, it is impossible to reason. It has
no cause, no logic. Therefore, it may
never go away. Irrational hate is as
durable and persistent as irrational
love. The hatred symbolized by
Amalek lasts “for all generations.” All
one can do is to remember and not
forget, to be constantly vigilant, and
to fight it whenever and wherever it
appears.
Two
Types of
Hate
Rabbi Lord
Jonathan
Sacks
SPIRIT
A WORD OF TORAH