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

