According to the Book of Genesis and Books of Chronicles, Amalek (עֲמָלֵק; Standard Hebrew ʻAmaleq, Tiberian Hebrew ʻĂmālēq) was the son of Eliphaz and the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:12; 1 Chr. 1:36); the chief of an Edomites tribe (Gen. 36:16). His mother was a Horites, a tribe whose territory the descendants of Esau had seized. The Biblical maximalism understanding of the Bible regards this genealogy as Biblical inerrancy. A Biblical minimalism understanding regards it as traditional ethnology rather than literal genealogy. In this latter view the Amalekites are related to the Edomites (consequently also to the Hebrews) and Horites. This can be concluded from the genealogy in Gen. 36:12; 1 Chr. 1:36. Amalek is a son of Esau's son Eliphaz and of the concubine Timna, a Horite and sister of Lotan. Amalek, for what ever reason, has become eponymous for the Amalekites. Gen. 36:16 refers to him as the "chief of Amalek" thus even within a literalist perspective of the Bible, his name can be understood to be a title derived from that of the clan or territory over which he ruled. An extra-Biblical tradition recorded by Nachmanides relates that the Amalekites were descended from a man named Amalek after whom Esau's grandson was later named. Such an eponymous ancestor of the Amalekites is also mentioned in Arab traditions. The name is sometimes interpreted as "dweller in the valley." [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd018.htm] [http://www.bju.edu/bible/strongs.php?lang=h&id=6002]. == Amalekites == Some interpret Gen. 14:7 (which refers to the "land of the Amalekites"), to mean that the Amalekites existed as early as the time of Abraham, in the region that would later become the Ancient Rome province of Arabia Petraea [http://www.dalton.org/groups/Rome/RMap.html]. This view corroborates Nachmanides' claim of an origin for the Amalekites earlier than Esau's grandson. However the passage in question does not require this interpretation as it may be referring to the region by a name from a later era. However, the Arab historian Masudi, citing traditional Arab history relates that the Amalekites did indeed exist at this early period having originated in the region of Mecca before the time of Abraham. In the Pentateuch, the Amalekites are nomads who attacked the Hebrews at Rephidim in the desert of Sinai during their exodus from Egypt: "smiting the hindmost, all that were feeble behind," (Books of Samuel 15:2). The Tanakh recognizes the Amalekites as indigenous tribesmen, "the first of the nations" (Book of Numbers 24:20) In the southern lowlands too, perhaps the dry grazing lands that are now the Negev (Num. 12, 14), there were aboriginal Amalekites who were daunting adversaries of the Hebrews in the earliest times. "They dwelt in the land of the south...from Havilah until thou comest to Shur" (Num. 13:29; 1 Sam. 15:7). At times said to be allied with the Moabites (Judg. 3:13) and the Midianites (Book of Judges 6:3). Each of their monarch bore the hereditary name of Agag (Num. 24:7; 1 Sam. 15:8). They also attacked the Israelites at Hormah (Num. 14:45). Saul defeated them utterly, but earned the wrath of God by sparing some for use as slaves, and failing to burn their treasures (1 Sam.). Saul also hesitated to kill Agag, at which point Samuel executed the Amalekite king himself. == Allies of the Amalekites == In the books of 1 Samuel and Judges, the tribe of Kenites are associated with the Amalekites, sometimes their allies, sometimes allied with the tribes of Israel. The Amalek people are invariably enemies of Israel. Saul's successful expedition against the unidentified "city of Amalek," in the plain (1 Sam. 15) resulted in the capture of the Amalekite king, Agag (the only Amalekite name that has been preserved). == Extermination of the Amalekites == As the ''Jewish Encyclopedia'' put it, "David waged a sacred war of extermination against the Amalekites," who subsequently disappeared from history. Long after, in the time of Hezekiah, five hundred Simeonites annihilated the last remnant "of the Amalekites that had escaped" on Mount Seir, and settled in their place.(1 Chr. 4:42-43) The Biblical relationship between the Hebrew and Amalekite tribes was one of unmitigated enmity. :"''Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.''" (1 Sam. 15:3). The Jews manner of dealing with them was extreme, as they could be shown no mercy. Women, children and animals were slain, and no slaves or gold could be taken from them. Rather all were killed, and their valuables were burned. :"''He betook himself to slay the women and the children, and thought he did not act therein either barbarously or inhumanly; first, because they were enemies whom he thus treated, and, in the next place, because it was done by the command of God, whom it was dangerous not to obey.''" (Flavius Josephus, ''Antiquites Judicae'', Book VI, Chapter 7) See [http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/shiur.asp?id=1329 Wipe Out Amalek] for a current rabbinical teaching on the matter. == Symbolism of the Amalekites == In Judaism tradition, the Amalekites came to represent the archetypal enemy of the Jews. For example, Haman (Judaism), from the Book of Esther, is called the Agagite, which is interpreted as being a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag. The term has been used metaphorically to refer to enemies of Judaism throughout history, including the Nazis, and controversially, by some to refer to the Arabs. ===Rejection of God=== The concept has long been used by rabbis (particularly the Baal Shem Tov) to represent the rejection of God, or Atheism. Of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) followed by Orthodox Jews, three refer to the Amalekites: to remember what the Amalekites did to the Jews, to not forget what the Amalekites did to the Jews, and to destroy the Amalekites utterly. The rabbis derived these from Deuteronomy 25:17-18, Exodus 17:14 and 1 Sam. 15:3. Rashi explains the third mitzvah: : ''From man unto woman, from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep, so that the name of Amalek not be mentioned even with reference to an animal by saying "This animal belonged to Amalek".'' == Kings of the Amalekites == Agag (1 Sam. 15:8) == External links == *[http://www.aish.com/purimthemes/purimthemesdefault/Remembering_Amalek.asp Remembering Amalek] * [http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1170 Latznu: Popular Culture and the Disciples of Amalek] * [http://www.interhack.net/projects/library/antiquities-jews/ Antiquities of the Jews - by Josephus Flavius] * [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1351&letter=A&search=Amalek ''The Jewish Encyclopedia'', 1901-6: Amalek] == References == ''The Punishment of Amalek in Jewish Tradition: Coping with the Moral Problem'', Avi Sagi, Harvard Theological Review Vol.87, No.3 (1994) p.323-46. Torah people Hebrew Bible/Tanakh people
''Amalekites were a tribe, predating Amalek the son of Eliphaz, who existed in the Roman province Arabia Petraea[1] as early as the time of Abraham (Gen. 14:7)'' This is why it's so hard to square real history with Bible history. There is no way to edit this. Where would you begin? In what way does a tribe ''predate'' its eponym? What does 'date' mean in such a context, anyway? What does the 'time' of Abraham mean? How about 'in the time of Theseus...' How about Abraham in the Roman province of Arabia Petraea? Could one suggest perhaps that the m-l-k of Amelek is the root for 'king' not 'valley'? that Amelek is Amelech, a 'king' ...but I don't even read Hebrew... The confidence of this Sunday School stuff is just daunting User:Wetman 09:41, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) Bible history and real history are one. The bible is a book of tremendous historical signifigance, and is known for its striking accuracy. The time line is pretty clear, to me. Maybe the tribe of amalek was known by some other name, and later was given the name of amalek. Your conjectures would require alot of evidence before being included. Also, I'm very certain that your wrong about the definition of Amalek, its extremely well documented as "valley dweller" User:JackLynch 10:07, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) :If someone would document these perfect certainties about the significance of Amalech's name in the entry, that would be a start, for those of us who lack certainty. The Bible is actually a library, not a 'book,' and indeed of tremendous historical significance. To return to the entry: ''In Babylonian inscriptions they are called Sute, in Egyptian Sittiu, and the Amarna tablets refer to them as Khabbati, or "plunderers.'' (cribbed here at this entry, word for word from http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary ) Now, what connects the Sute, Sittiu, and Khabbati in inscriptions with these people? That would be helpful too. "However, modern scholarship does not accept as proven the identification of the Amalekites with any group known from extra-Biblical sources and the majority opinion is that they are mythological." I just found this sensible statement at http://www.tutorgig.com/encyclopedia What do you suppose it is based on? Nothing that would convert the ignorant, we can agree. It does seem curious that the "Khabbati" reference on Amarna tablets ''only'' appears at websites run by religionists, any not on websites run by specialists in the Amarna period of Egyptology. Why is that, one wonders? A link would help here too. User:Wetman 10:49, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) I didn't like that sentance either actually. Now its gone, along w any references to any non-Amalek names for the Amalekites (unless you count "atheism" that is ;) User:JackLynch 11:10, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) I removed this sentence: "This last is particularly popular within modern right-wing Zionism groups." It is factually incorrect, and even if there are some extremists who make the identification, it is certainly not popular. In fact, I have seen America called Amaleka more than I have seen Arabs identified as such. As for the Romans, they are identified with Edom (Esau) in Talmudic and post-Talmudic literature, though not specifically with Amalek.User:Danny 11:22, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) Danny, I got the Amalek-Rome identification from the Jewish Encyclopedia [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1351&letter=A]. --User:Zero0000 11:47, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) Yeah, I've got references out the wazoo these as well. Cripes, I came opon the concept of Amalek in reference to the palistinians. Anyways, I agree with rewording what you took out, but it needs to go back, in one form or another. User:JackLynch 12:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) ==Wetman's proposed additions== Yes, now we're getting to sound material. I'm adding what I've been working on while Danny was working here. Please, take whatever is good and correct, and work it into the entry. Then erase this. I merged all of it, and added sections, etc... Lets hear what you think. User:JackLynch 03:08, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) ==Danny's edits, thoughts== First of all, the etymologies suggested above are incorrect. It cannot come from either ''king'' or ''valley dweller'': neither term shares the same root. In fact, Amalek is problematic in that it does not have a distinguishable three letter root, indicating that it is probably some loan word. I am not very happy with the Jewish Encyclopedia article either, in terms of the identification with Rome. I am pretty convinced that the one case it cited is metaphorical--I can cite several others that identify Rome with Edom (Esau). User:Danny 03:13, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) I don't agree with your recent edits (other than the spelling correction of course!). I have always heard it translated as "dweller in the valley". And IMO you did a diservice to the portion about Arabs and nazis and so forth, reducing clarity and installing POV. Lets try to back things up with citations, and leave our own personal positions out of the article. BTW, if anybody would like to know what I really think, feel free to IM me, and you'll get a jackhammer of POV ;) User:JackLynch 03:30, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) Obviously, I disagree. Hebrew and other related Semitic languages are based on roots. There are rules for how these roots can be manipulated into new words. Amalek is spelled עמלק while the word valley is עמק. While they are similar, the relationship you are suggesting would have to account for the insertion of the ל into the word. That just cannot be done, indicating that the word Amalek is not from the word עמק. As for the disservice and supposed POV insertion, I have spent a lot of time living with and studying the Israeli far right. The statement made it seem as if the far right identifies the Arabs/Palestinians as Amalek (or the Nazis, for that matter). Yes, in the sense that they are using the term as a metaphor. If it were anything else whatsoever, there would be distinct halachic ramifications. For example, if the Nazis (i.e., the Germans) were Amalek, it would be incumbent on them to kill them all. No exceptions would be made (see I Samuel 15). It would certainly be forbidden to enter into any kind of negotiations with them, purchase goods from them, speak to any of them, or even spare their pets. While the command to exterminate them would be lifted because of practical reasons, until the coming of the Messiah (see Maimonides, Laws of Kings, chap. 10), all contact with anyone or even anything German would have to be avoided. There is no one in Israel who says that. Furthermore, on the far right of Israeli politics there is, as yet, no one who calls for the extermination of the Arabs because they are Amalek. Kahane never said it (and I spoke with him several times when he was alive), Yisrael Ariel never said it (in fact, I have heard him say specifically that it is not a mitzvah to kill Arabs), nor did Michael Ben Horin (I have heard him state explicitly that Arabs are Ishmael. Dov Lior said the same thing many times. Baruch Marzel is a student of Kahane and Ariel and would not contradict them (he was also there in the room when Ariel said there is no mitzvah to kill Arabs). This accounts for the most extreme leadership of the far right in Israel (I have never heard Yehudah Etzion on the topic, but I can assume, based on his writings, that it would not be different). If they did identify Arabs with Amalek, they would not have been able to make the statement that a) Arabs should not be killed; or b) that Arabs are Ishmael. Sorry. User:Danny 03:54, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) I'm not sure as to the need for an apology. You might well be right about the actual meaning of Amalek, I'm no expert on hebrew. I do know that it is overwhelmingly interpreted as that however on the references I have viewed (I'll compile a few later on). As far as this israeli far right stuff, all I can say is what I know. I have a Jewish friend who is a far right extremist, who makes statements like "everytime an arab dies, a rose grows in his place" and so forth. Also, in conversations with the Rabbi's on askmoses.com I have been told that while the Jewish community at large disagrees with the use of Amalek to refer to any current racial group, and disagrees that the Palistinians are the remainder of the amalekites, some do indeed hold that view. The view that Hitler was amalek is much more commonly held, and even more so the view of it as symbolicalism for atheism. I actually find your comments and edits informative and a benificial part of the process, even if I do not agree with the changes being the final result. Thank you, User:JackLynch 05:57, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) I don't think that mentioning the Israeli govt. or Israeli politics is useful at all in this article in regards to use of the term Amalek. I don't know of them doing it, and the reference I made was based primarilly on an american friend of mine who was quite extreme in his views and actions (he told me of fistfights with neonazi's he had confronted) as well as various websites I have read [http://www.ortzion.org/Amalek.html] [http://yesha.homestead.com/politics28.html] [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/mort/zuckerman032102.asp](just google "amalek" and read a few). User:JackLynch 06:58, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) I am not going to get into an edit war over this, however, I would like to see some of the etymological sources of this interpretation of Amalek. Based on the comments above, it is clearly not Semitic (and I am somewhat of an expert on Hebrew). I did look up some Akkadian roots and came up with ''emugu'', meaning ''power'' or army, and ''malku'' meaning ''prince''. While these meanings would seem a lot closer, ''emugu'' also does not account for the medial ''lamed'' (''l'') and malku does not account for the initial ''ayin'' (a guttural consonant), so I am very suspect, but I am no expert on Akkadian. As for "valley dwellers," exactly which valley. i checked a popular source, ''Reader's Digest Almanac of the Bible'' (1991, ed. Geoffrey Wigoder), which says "An ancient nomadic tribe that roamed the northern Sinai desert and the Negeb." Not a great source, but there was considerable research put into that article (I know, because I was the one who wrote it). That is not an area known for its valleys--in fact, it is rather flat. As for those sites you bring, it is important to understand how rhetoric plays in halachic speech. I'll start with the Baal Shem Tov because that is easiest. While he could certainly have made the statement, it could not be used to override the halachic position of Maimonides as stated in Laws of Kings. It is not a denial of the commandment to eradicate the people of Amalek, but rather a recognition that in these days it is impossible, so here is something folksy and cute that people can do instead (a tad cynical, admittedly, but essentially that is what it is). Similarly, since there are no more sacrifices, he would also say that the table at which three or more Jews eat is like an altar, and the meal at which words of Torah are spoken is like a sacrifice. Very sweet, but it does not override the rules of sacrifice, which are inactive because the format with which to offer sacrifice does not exist. As for your friend, sure, he made some crazy statements. I've heard plenty. But the "rose" bit does not lead to identification with Amalek. I am convinced that when pressed on the issues from a halachic perspective (the determining factor in far-right Judaism), these people you quote would admit that these identifications are not Amalek. For example, if a Palestinian willingly leaves the land of Israel and recognizes Jewish sovereignty there, would it still be necessary to kill him and his entire family? Would you have to kill a three-year-old whose great-grandfather was a Nazi? If they were halachically Amalek then yes. I wonder whether they would say that. I know of no halachic source that would. In other words, their statements reflect the hyperbole of Jewish speech within certain communities and little more. One last, interesting source is Kook's small work, ''Mussar Avicha'', in which he claims that the eradication of Amalek must be done out of love. If you hate Amalek, you cannot kill them, because killing them is a correction for their soul. Obviously, a very bizarre piece, and one that is little known at that, but Kook is regarded as authoritative by the far right. Try quoting it with your friend. Well, gotta run to work. I am meeting with the former Chief Rabbi of Israel today. I can try and ask him. User:Danny 12:50, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) Fascinating. I was clearly right to compliment your involvement in this article. To be honest the primary reason why I edit at the wikipedia is to learn from the process. This is not going to be an easy edit tho, because the points you bring up are subtle, and providing the distiction in a NPOV manner is not going to be easy, especially if we are striving for "prose" :). Trust me that I am not interested in excessive emotionalism, but rather what is best for accuracy in the article. The way to avoid an edit war is to discuss things in talk, and to provide a different (even if only subtley) edit each time, rather than reverting. I have found this to be a vital peice of policy and diplomacy here at the wikipedia. Cheers, User:JackLynch 22:20, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) Hi Jack. I would suggest that you find some source for the etymology or remove it until you have one. The one thing I came up with is that it may be a contraction of two words: ''am'', meaning ''people'', and the Assyrian ''ilku'', meaning corvee. It would then imply that the Amalekites were a band of nomadic mercenaries, wholly in keeping with the text. The problem is that I have not been able to verify whether it is ''ilku'' or ''ilqu'' (k and q are two different sounds in Semitic languages, even though they are not currently distinguished in contemporary spoken Hebrew), which would imply a different root. Amalek is more properly 'Amaleq. I can ask an Assyriologist I work with tomorrow--my own Akkadian dictionary is rather limited and often inaccurate. It was fun to get back into it though. ''Shuma awilum awilam ubbir'' ... (the opening line of the Code of Hammurabi). User:Danny 23:35, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) In terms of the history and etymology, Danny is totally correct. In terms of the issue of whether or not some right-wing Israeli zealots identify Palestinians as Amalek, he is somewhat correct, but in another way he is incorrect. As regards the ''specific individuals'' that Danny mentions, yes, they do not claim that all Palestinians should literally be regarded as Amalek; they do not want to exterminate the Palestinians. As regards most Israeli right-wingers (both religious and secular), they too do not not claim that all Palestinians should literally be regarded as Amalek; they do not want to exterminate the Palestinians. Thus, we are in 9o% agreement. But there is a small minority of right-wingers who repeatedly do refer to Palestinians as Amalek; they are not claiming that this is a biological fact, and they may not even be claiming that this is a halakhically valid identification. However, they use the word, and they approve of violence. To be fair, they do not advocate extermination or genocide; looking at their worls most of them appear to be asking for the right to self-defense, even if it means pre-emptive attacks that will kill. But enough right-wingers who use the term exist to merit a breif discussion. (And of course, one must also note that this would be the few of the small minority at best, and that this is view is totally rejected by the Israeli majority, both religious and secular.) Here are some references I have found: :''The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right'', Ehud Sprinzak, Oxford Univ. Press 1991 p.117-123,and p.267-270 :''ush Emunim: The Politics of Zionist Fundamentalism in Israel'', Ehud Sprinzak, American Jewish Congress, 1986,p.12 :Rabi Israel Hess, "The Geonocide Ruling of the Torah" Bat Kol (the Bar Illan students' paper) Feb. 26, 1980 :David Rosentzveig ''A Time to Break Conventions'', Nekuda, No.75, July 1984 :Haim Tzuria ''The Right to Hate'' Nekuda No.15, August 1980 :Israel Ariel ''Things As They Really Are'', Tzfia I, 1985 :''For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel'', Ian S. Lustick, Council on Foreigh Relations, NY,1988 :Uriel Tal ''Foundations of a Political Messianic Trend in Israel'', Jerusalem Post, no. 35, Spring 1985 Also, we need to realize that a mainstream strand within rabbinic Judaism holds that Amalek is not a people, in the narrow sense that Danny and others are using. Other Jewish points of view exist. For instance, Rabbi Moshe Amiel 1883-1946) ruled that one should not understand Amalek as being a particular ethnic group. Rather, he viewed Amalek as the symbol of armed might. In Rabbi Amiel's view, a permanent war prevails between the sword and the book, and "one can only be built on the ruins of the other". [Derashot el Ami, 3.132, 3 volume set, Tel-Aviv, 1964.] This is also the view of many non-Orthodox Jewish rabbis. So we cannot just claim that "Jews today do not identify the Palestinians as Amalek". Some Jews ''do'' make this identification. This ''does not'' mean that they are making a biological identification, nor does it mean that they are advocating genocide. (They certainly are not.) The term has ideological uses beyond the literal meanings of the word. User:RK 00:12, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC) Actually, when it comes to the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, I basically do know everybody, some of them quite well, but that's a long story. I do not deny that the term is used metaphorically. I think that overall we agree, but I reject the notion that there is a halachic equation being made. Paradoxically, just because people are called Amalek doesn't mean that they are believed to be Amalek, with all the implications such a statement would contain. From what you said above, I think you agree with me on this point too. Essentially, the term Amalek has been neutered to some degree in popular discourse to mean "the epitome of evil." Compare, for example, with the statement by the Besht above. I do not know it, but assuming it is accurate, does that mean that the Baal Shem Tov held that all atheists and their descendants should be killed. Similarly, I admit that the far right uses it as hyperbole, but not as halachah (and I don't want to get into a discussion of the ramifications of violating one of the Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach, which is an entirely different story that does not relate to Amalek per se, nor do the mitzvot associated with Kibush Ha'Aretz). One of the sources you quote, for example, is Ariel, who I do happen to know very well (he was a neighbor of mine, and I served with his son in the army--I also studied under him and his brothers Yaakov and Yigal). In a semi-private conversation with him, I heard him say distinctly ''Ein mitzvah laharog Aravim'', with a caveat that I will not repeat here. (Interestingly, that same night he was arrested). As for Amiel, he will have to answer the Rambam (see Hilchot Melachim, 10:1). Again, Amiel is using metaphor, as did the Besht, but there are strict halachic considerations that he is not addressing, such as ''Lo tichayun''. User:Danny 00:21, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) First of all about the meaning of the word: the references given for "valley dweller" are not adequate. They have just copied the theory from somewhere else, probably an earlier compendium which is no better. What is needed is citation of a named respected scholar. After asking a few people who know about stuff like this, I'm pretty sure that the scholarly consensus is "foreign word of unknown meaning". As for traditional imaginative "translations", there are several. As an example, in Midrash Tanhuma, portions Yitro and Ki Tetze, there is the claim that Amalek comes from ''am leq'' "the licking people," with the explanation that the Amalekites were called so because "they came to lick the Israelites' blood like dogs." Such doubtful speculations are taken seriously by very few, but the very fact they exist is proof that there was no generally accepted translation. --User:Zero0000 14:01, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) Regarding modern groups called Amalek: Sometimes it is hard to tell whether a particular identification is intended to be taken literally or not. However, my contacts agree with Danny that a literal identification of a modern group with Amalek is halakically almost impossible. Special mention was made of the statement in the Talmud (Berakhot 26a) that the gentile peoples of the Torah were mixed together beyond recognition, and (critically from a practical point of view) the complete lack of an identification of Arabs with Amalek by any of the traditional authorities. On the other hand, there have been examples where a metaphorical identification with Amalek has been used to excuse violence (by supposing that the mitzvah of extermination refers to Amalek in a metaphorical sense). Examples involving Arabs include some supporters of Baruch Goldstein and a former rabbi of Bar-Ilan University named Israel Hess. --User:Zero0000 14:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) Example of a metaphorical identification: "And Jewish self-respect and honor must be resurrected with an end to the humiliating obscenity of carefree political relations with the Amalek of our times, Germany." (Meir Kahane, Uncomfortable questions for comfortable Jews, 1987) --User:Zero0000 14:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) This is for Danny [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=amalek+valley+dweller&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images] I didn't want to put a million links in here, but he asked where I was getting this idea about "valley dweller" from. Oh, and BTW, I think it would be more than fine if you guys would like to place a differing view of what the word means, maybe even a whole paragraph regarding it. But it is clearly important that some regard it to mean "valley dweller" even if it is innaccurate to translate it that way. User:JackLynch 06:19, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) ==Amalek, father of the Amalekites???== Gen. xiv. 7 refers to Amalekites existing at the time of Abraham, so it is problematic to identify them as descendants of Amalek who lived later. This used to be mentioned but its gone now. --User:Zero0000 01:35, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) Well, I think its mentioned, but strangely. It could actually do with a good deal more discussion, and maybe a whole section devoted to it. I'm really not an expert (or even terribly interested) in this portion of the meaning however, so I doubt I will be doing that (this in no way should be taken to mean that it shouldn't be done ;). User:JackLynch 18:39, 24 Jan 2004 (PST) == Amalekites or Amelekites? == Both spellings occur in the article. I don't know anything about the subject so I'm hesitant to make a change, though I assume that the correct spelling is "Amalekites" (or are there two groups with very similar names? If so, I'm ''completely'' confused!). User:Mariko 03:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Amalekites in the days of Abraham == Firstly the Bible does not mention any Amalekites in the days of Abraham. When discussing the invasion of Chederlaomer in the days of Abraham it talks about the "land of the Amalekites". Bearing in mind that the description of this battle is written not earlier than Moses even from the point of view of Biblical literalists, there is no mystery here. Its like saying that Julius Caesar traveled as far as York in England even though it wasn't called York or England in the time of Caesar. Its called England and York now and it was called "land of the Amalekites" at the time the Bible was written. A Jewish tradition recorded by Nachmanides claims that Amalekites did exist before Amalek the grandson of Esau. The tradition states that Amalek the grandson of Esau was named after an Amalek who had been the founder of the Amalekites. Arab traditions claim that the Amalekites originated in Arabia. User:Kuratowski's Ghost 00:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) :There is quite a bit of information from Arab history about the Amalekites that I am reading up on and will add to the article. The Arab sources relate things not found in Jewish traditions but which sheds light on some odd references to Amalekites in connection with Egypt in Jewish sources. User:Kuratowski's Ghost 23:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Timna and Timnah == I have removed the comment about the Edomite chief of Timnah which attempts to imply a connection with Timna. The names while looking similar in Bible English transliteration are unrelated in the original Hebrew. Timna from the root m-n-` with a gutteral ayin at the end means "restraint", Timnah on the other hand means either "land towards the south" from the the root t-m-n or "alloted portion / gift" from the root m-n-h.
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Amalek:
Amalek
Amalek
Amalekite
Amalekites
Amalek
According to the Book of Genesis and Books of Chronicles, Amalek (עֲמָלֵק; Standard Hebrew ʻAmaleq, Tiberian Hebrew ʻĂmālēq) was the son of Eliphaz and the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:12; 1 Chr. 1:36); the chief of an Edomites tribe (Gen. 36:16). His mother was a Horites, a tribe whose territory the descendants of Esau had seized. The Biblical maximalism understanding of the Bible regards this genealogy as Biblical inerrancy. A Biblical minimalism understanding regards it as traditional ethnology rather than literal genealogy. In this latter view the Amalekites are related to the Edomites (consequently also to the Hebrews) and Horites. This can be concluded from the genealogy in Gen. 36:12; 1 Chr. 1:36. Amalek is a son of Esau's son Eliphaz and of the concubine Timna, a Horite and sister of Lotan. Amalek, for what ever reason, has become eponymous for the Amalekites. Gen. 36:16 refers to him as the "chief of Amalek" thus even within a literalist perspective of the Bible, his name can be understood to be a title derived from that of the clan or territory over which he ruled. An extra-Biblical tradition recorded by Nachmanides relates that the Amalekites were descended from a man named Amalek after whom Esau's grandson was later named. Such an eponymous ancestor of the Amalekites is also mentioned in Arab traditions. The name is sometimes interpreted as "dweller in the valley." [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd018.htm] [http://www.bju.edu/bible/strongs.php?lang=h&id=6002]. == Amalekites == Some interpret Gen. 14:7 (which refers to the "land of the Amalekites"), to mean that the Amalekites existed as early as the time of Abraham, in the region that would later become the Ancient Rome province of Arabia Petraea [http://www.dalton.org/groups/Rome/RMap.html]. This view corroborates Nachmanides' claim of an origin for the Amalekites earlier than Esau's grandson. However the passage in question does not require this interpretation as it may be referring to the region by a name from a later era. However, the Arab historian Masudi, citing traditional Arab history relates that the Amalekites did indeed exist at this early period having originated in the region of Mecca before the time of Abraham. In the Pentateuch, the Amalekites are nomads who attacked the Hebrews at Rephidim in the desert of Sinai during their exodus from Egypt: "smiting the hindmost, all that were feeble behind," (Books of Samuel 15:2). The Tanakh recognizes the Amalekites as indigenous tribesmen, "the first of the nations" (Book of Numbers 24:20) In the southern lowlands too, perhaps the dry grazing lands that are now the Negev (Num. 12, 14), there were aboriginal Amalekites who were daunting adversaries of the Hebrews in the earliest times. "They dwelt in the land of the south...from Havilah until thou comest to Shur" (Num. 13:29; 1 Sam. 15:7). At times said to be allied with the Moabites (Judg. 3:13) and the Midianites (Book of Judges 6:3). Each of their monarch bore the hereditary name of Agag (Num. 24:7; 1 Sam. 15:8). They also attacked the Israelites at Hormah (Num. 14:45). Saul defeated them utterly, but earned the wrath of God by sparing some for use as slaves, and failing to burn their treasures (1 Sam.). Saul also hesitated to kill Agag, at which point Samuel executed the Amalekite king himself. == Allies of the Amalekites == In the books of 1 Samuel and Judges, the tribe of Kenites are associated with the Amalekites, sometimes their allies, sometimes allied with the tribes of Israel. The Amalek people are invariably enemies of Israel. Saul's successful expedition against the unidentified "city of Amalek," in the plain (1 Sam. 15) resulted in the capture of the Amalekite king, Agag (the only Amalekite name that has been preserved). == Extermination of the Amalekites == As the ''Jewish Encyclopedia'' put it, "David waged a sacred war of extermination against the Amalekites," who subsequently disappeared from history. Long after, in the time of Hezekiah, five hundred Simeonites annihilated the last remnant "of the Amalekites that had escaped" on Mount Seir, and settled in their place.(1 Chr. 4:42-43) The Biblical relationship between the Hebrew and Amalekite tribes was one of unmitigated enmity. :"''Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.''" (1 Sam. 15:3). The Jews manner of dealing with them was extreme, as they could be shown no mercy. Women, children and animals were slain, and no slaves or gold could be taken from them. Rather all were killed, and their valuables were burned. :"''He betook himself to slay the women and the children, and thought he did not act therein either barbarously or inhumanly; first, because they were enemies whom he thus treated, and, in the next place, because it was done by the command of God, whom it was dangerous not to obey.''" (Flavius Josephus, ''Antiquites Judicae'', Book VI, Chapter 7) See [http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/shiur.asp?id=1329 Wipe Out Amalek] for a current rabbinical teaching on the matter. == Symbolism of the Amalekites == In Judaism tradition, the Amalekites came to represent the archetypal enemy of the Jews. For example, Haman (Judaism), from the Book of Esther, is called the Agagite, which is interpreted as being a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag. The term has been used metaphorically to refer to enemies of Judaism throughout history, including the Nazis, and controversially, by some to refer to the Arabs. ===Rejection of God=== The concept has long been used by rabbis (particularly the Baal Shem Tov) to represent the rejection of God, or Atheism. Of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) followed by Orthodox Jews, three refer to the Amalekites: to remember what the Amalekites did to the Jews, to not forget what the Amalekites did to the Jews, and to destroy the Amalekites utterly. The rabbis derived these from Deuteronomy 25:17-18, Exodus 17:14 and 1 Sam. 15:3. Rashi explains the third mitzvah: : ''From man unto woman, from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep, so that the name of Amalek not be mentioned even with reference to an animal by saying "This animal belonged to Amalek".'' == Kings of the Amalekites == Agag (1 Sam. 15:8) == External links == *[http://www.aish.com/purimthemes/purimthemesdefault/Remembering_Amalek.asp Remembering Amalek] * [http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1170 Latznu: Popular Culture and the Disciples of Amalek] * [http://www.interhack.net/projects/library/antiquities-jews/ Antiquities of the Jews - by Josephus Flavius] * [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1351&letter=A&search=Amalek ''The Jewish Encyclopedia'', 1901-6: Amalek] == References == ''The Punishment of Amalek in Jewish Tradition: Coping with the Moral Problem'', Avi Sagi, Harvard Theological Review Vol.87, No.3 (1994) p.323-46. Torah people Hebrew Bible/Tanakh people
Amalek
''Amalekites were a tribe, predating Amalek the son of Eliphaz, who existed in the Roman province Arabia Petraea[1] as early as the time of Abraham (Gen. 14:7)'' This is why it's so hard to square real history with Bible history. There is no way to edit this. Where would you begin? In what way does a tribe ''predate'' its eponym? What does 'date' mean in such a context, anyway? What does the 'time' of Abraham mean? How about 'in the time of Theseus...' How about Abraham in the Roman province of Arabia Petraea? Could one suggest perhaps that the m-l-k of Amelek is the root for 'king' not 'valley'? that Amelek is Amelech, a 'king' ...but I don't even read Hebrew... The confidence of this Sunday School stuff is just daunting User:Wetman 09:41, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) Bible history and real history are one. The bible is a book of tremendous historical signifigance, and is known for its striking accuracy. The time line is pretty clear, to me. Maybe the tribe of amalek was known by some other name, and later was given the name of amalek. Your conjectures would require alot of evidence before being included. Also, I'm very certain that your wrong about the definition of Amalek, its extremely well documented as "valley dweller" User:JackLynch 10:07, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) :If someone would document these perfect certainties about the significance of Amalech's name in the entry, that would be a start, for those of us who lack certainty. The Bible is actually a library, not a 'book,' and indeed of tremendous historical significance. To return to the entry: ''In Babylonian inscriptions they are called Sute, in Egyptian Sittiu, and the Amarna tablets refer to them as Khabbati, or "plunderers.'' (cribbed here at this entry, word for word from http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary ) Now, what connects the Sute, Sittiu, and Khabbati in inscriptions with these people? That would be helpful too. "However, modern scholarship does not accept as proven the identification of the Amalekites with any group known from extra-Biblical sources and the majority opinion is that they are mythological." I just found this sensible statement at http://www.tutorgig.com/encyclopedia What do you suppose it is based on? Nothing that would convert the ignorant, we can agree. It does seem curious that the "Khabbati" reference on Amarna tablets ''only'' appears at websites run by religionists, any not on websites run by specialists in the Amarna period of Egyptology. Why is that, one wonders? A link would help here too. User:Wetman 10:49, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) I didn't like that sentance either actually. Now its gone, along w any references to any non-Amalek names for the Amalekites (unless you count "atheism" that is ;) User:JackLynch 11:10, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) I removed this sentence: "This last is particularly popular within modern right-wing Zionism groups." It is factually incorrect, and even if there are some extremists who make the identification, it is certainly not popular. In fact, I have seen America called Amaleka more than I have seen Arabs identified as such. As for the Romans, they are identified with Edom (Esau) in Talmudic and post-Talmudic literature, though not specifically with Amalek.User:Danny 11:22, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) Danny, I got the Amalek-Rome identification from the Jewish Encyclopedia [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1351&letter=A]. --User:Zero0000 11:47, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) Yeah, I've got references out the wazoo these as well. Cripes, I came opon the concept of Amalek in reference to the palistinians. Anyways, I agree with rewording what you took out, but it needs to go back, in one form or another. User:JackLynch 12:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) ==Wetman's proposed additions== Yes, now we're getting to sound material. I'm adding what I've been working on while Danny was working here. Please, take whatever is good and correct, and work it into the entry. Then erase this. I merged all of it, and added sections, etc... Lets hear what you think. User:JackLynch 03:08, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) ==Danny's edits, thoughts== First of all, the etymologies suggested above are incorrect. It cannot come from either ''king'' or ''valley dweller'': neither term shares the same root. In fact, Amalek is problematic in that it does not have a distinguishable three letter root, indicating that it is probably some loan word. I am not very happy with the Jewish Encyclopedia article either, in terms of the identification with Rome. I am pretty convinced that the one case it cited is metaphorical--I can cite several others that identify Rome with Edom (Esau). User:Danny 03:13, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) I don't agree with your recent edits (other than the spelling correction of course!). I have always heard it translated as "dweller in the valley". And IMO you did a diservice to the portion about Arabs and nazis and so forth, reducing clarity and installing POV. Lets try to back things up with citations, and leave our own personal positions out of the article. BTW, if anybody would like to know what I really think, feel free to IM me, and you'll get a jackhammer of POV ;) User:JackLynch 03:30, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) Obviously, I disagree. Hebrew and other related Semitic languages are based on roots. There are rules for how these roots can be manipulated into new words. Amalek is spelled עמלק while the word valley is עמק. While they are similar, the relationship you are suggesting would have to account for the insertion of the ל into the word. That just cannot be done, indicating that the word Amalek is not from the word עמק. As for the disservice and supposed POV insertion, I have spent a lot of time living with and studying the Israeli far right. The statement made it seem as if the far right identifies the Arabs/Palestinians as Amalek (or the Nazis, for that matter). Yes, in the sense that they are using the term as a metaphor. If it were anything else whatsoever, there would be distinct halachic ramifications. For example, if the Nazis (i.e., the Germans) were Amalek, it would be incumbent on them to kill them all. No exceptions would be made (see I Samuel 15). It would certainly be forbidden to enter into any kind of negotiations with them, purchase goods from them, speak to any of them, or even spare their pets. While the command to exterminate them would be lifted because of practical reasons, until the coming of the Messiah (see Maimonides, Laws of Kings, chap. 10), all contact with anyone or even anything German would have to be avoided. There is no one in Israel who says that. Furthermore, on the far right of Israeli politics there is, as yet, no one who calls for the extermination of the Arabs because they are Amalek. Kahane never said it (and I spoke with him several times when he was alive), Yisrael Ariel never said it (in fact, I have heard him say specifically that it is not a mitzvah to kill Arabs), nor did Michael Ben Horin (I have heard him state explicitly that Arabs are Ishmael. Dov Lior said the same thing many times. Baruch Marzel is a student of Kahane and Ariel and would not contradict them (he was also there in the room when Ariel said there is no mitzvah to kill Arabs). This accounts for the most extreme leadership of the far right in Israel (I have never heard Yehudah Etzion on the topic, but I can assume, based on his writings, that it would not be different). If they did identify Arabs with Amalek, they would not have been able to make the statement that a) Arabs should not be killed; or b) that Arabs are Ishmael. Sorry. User:Danny 03:54, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) I'm not sure as to the need for an apology. You might well be right about the actual meaning of Amalek, I'm no expert on hebrew. I do know that it is overwhelmingly interpreted as that however on the references I have viewed (I'll compile a few later on). As far as this israeli far right stuff, all I can say is what I know. I have a Jewish friend who is a far right extremist, who makes statements like "everytime an arab dies, a rose grows in his place" and so forth. Also, in conversations with the Rabbi's on askmoses.com I have been told that while the Jewish community at large disagrees with the use of Amalek to refer to any current racial group, and disagrees that the Palistinians are the remainder of the amalekites, some do indeed hold that view. The view that Hitler was amalek is much more commonly held, and even more so the view of it as symbolicalism for atheism. I actually find your comments and edits informative and a benificial part of the process, even if I do not agree with the changes being the final result. Thank you, User:JackLynch 05:57, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) I don't think that mentioning the Israeli govt. or Israeli politics is useful at all in this article in regards to use of the term Amalek. I don't know of them doing it, and the reference I made was based primarilly on an american friend of mine who was quite extreme in his views and actions (he told me of fistfights with neonazi's he had confronted) as well as various websites I have read [http://www.ortzion.org/Amalek.html] [http://yesha.homestead.com/politics28.html] [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/mort/zuckerman032102.asp](just google "amalek" and read a few). User:JackLynch 06:58, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) I am not going to get into an edit war over this, however, I would like to see some of the etymological sources of this interpretation of Amalek. Based on the comments above, it is clearly not Semitic (and I am somewhat of an expert on Hebrew). I did look up some Akkadian roots and came up with ''emugu'', meaning ''power'' or army, and ''malku'' meaning ''prince''. While these meanings would seem a lot closer, ''emugu'' also does not account for the medial ''lamed'' (''l'') and malku does not account for the initial ''ayin'' (a guttural consonant), so I am very suspect, but I am no expert on Akkadian. As for "valley dwellers," exactly which valley. i checked a popular source, ''Reader's Digest Almanac of the Bible'' (1991, ed. Geoffrey Wigoder), which says "An ancient nomadic tribe that roamed the northern Sinai desert and the Negeb." Not a great source, but there was considerable research put into that article (I know, because I was the one who wrote it). That is not an area known for its valleys--in fact, it is rather flat. As for those sites you bring, it is important to understand how rhetoric plays in halachic speech. I'll start with the Baal Shem Tov because that is easiest. While he could certainly have made the statement, it could not be used to override the halachic position of Maimonides as stated in Laws of Kings. It is not a denial of the commandment to eradicate the people of Amalek, but rather a recognition that in these days it is impossible, so here is something folksy and cute that people can do instead (a tad cynical, admittedly, but essentially that is what it is). Similarly, since there are no more sacrifices, he would also say that the table at which three or more Jews eat is like an altar, and the meal at which words of Torah are spoken is like a sacrifice. Very sweet, but it does not override the rules of sacrifice, which are inactive because the format with which to offer sacrifice does not exist. As for your friend, sure, he made some crazy statements. I've heard plenty. But the "rose" bit does not lead to identification with Amalek. I am convinced that when pressed on the issues from a halachic perspective (the determining factor in far-right Judaism), these people you quote would admit that these identifications are not Amalek. For example, if a Palestinian willingly leaves the land of Israel and recognizes Jewish sovereignty there, would it still be necessary to kill him and his entire family? Would you have to kill a three-year-old whose great-grandfather was a Nazi? If they were halachically Amalek then yes. I wonder whether they would say that. I know of no halachic source that would. In other words, their statements reflect the hyperbole of Jewish speech within certain communities and little more. One last, interesting source is Kook's small work, ''Mussar Avicha'', in which he claims that the eradication of Amalek must be done out of love. If you hate Amalek, you cannot kill them, because killing them is a correction for their soul. Obviously, a very bizarre piece, and one that is little known at that, but Kook is regarded as authoritative by the far right. Try quoting it with your friend. Well, gotta run to work. I am meeting with the former Chief Rabbi of Israel today. I can try and ask him. User:Danny 12:50, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) Fascinating. I was clearly right to compliment your involvement in this article. To be honest the primary reason why I edit at the wikipedia is to learn from the process. This is not going to be an easy edit tho, because the points you bring up are subtle, and providing the distiction in a NPOV manner is not going to be easy, especially if we are striving for "prose" :). Trust me that I am not interested in excessive emotionalism, but rather what is best for accuracy in the article. The way to avoid an edit war is to discuss things in talk, and to provide a different (even if only subtley) edit each time, rather than reverting. I have found this to be a vital peice of policy and diplomacy here at the wikipedia. Cheers, User:JackLynch 22:20, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) Hi Jack. I would suggest that you find some source for the etymology or remove it until you have one. The one thing I came up with is that it may be a contraction of two words: ''am'', meaning ''people'', and the Assyrian ''ilku'', meaning corvee. It would then imply that the Amalekites were a band of nomadic mercenaries, wholly in keeping with the text. The problem is that I have not been able to verify whether it is ''ilku'' or ''ilqu'' (k and q are two different sounds in Semitic languages, even though they are not currently distinguished in contemporary spoken Hebrew), which would imply a different root. Amalek is more properly 'Amaleq. I can ask an Assyriologist I work with tomorrow--my own Akkadian dictionary is rather limited and often inaccurate. It was fun to get back into it though. ''Shuma awilum awilam ubbir'' ... (the opening line of the Code of Hammurabi). User:Danny 23:35, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) In terms of the history and etymology, Danny is totally correct. In terms of the issue of whether or not some right-wing Israeli zealots identify Palestinians as Amalek, he is somewhat correct, but in another way he is incorrect. As regards the ''specific individuals'' that Danny mentions, yes, they do not claim that all Palestinians should literally be regarded as Amalek; they do not want to exterminate the Palestinians. As regards most Israeli right-wingers (both religious and secular), they too do not not claim that all Palestinians should literally be regarded as Amalek; they do not want to exterminate the Palestinians. Thus, we are in 9o% agreement. But there is a small minority of right-wingers who repeatedly do refer to Palestinians as Amalek; they are not claiming that this is a biological fact, and they may not even be claiming that this is a halakhically valid identification. However, they use the word, and they approve of violence. To be fair, they do not advocate extermination or genocide; looking at their worls most of them appear to be asking for the right to self-defense, even if it means pre-emptive attacks that will kill. But enough right-wingers who use the term exist to merit a breif discussion. (And of course, one must also note that this would be the few of the small minority at best, and that this is view is totally rejected by the Israeli majority, both religious and secular.) Here are some references I have found: :''The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right'', Ehud Sprinzak, Oxford Univ. Press 1991 p.117-123,and p.267-270 :''ush Emunim: The Politics of Zionist Fundamentalism in Israel'', Ehud Sprinzak, American Jewish Congress, 1986,p.12 :Rabi Israel Hess, "The Geonocide Ruling of the Torah" Bat Kol (the Bar Illan students' paper) Feb. 26, 1980 :David Rosentzveig ''A Time to Break Conventions'', Nekuda, No.75, July 1984 :Haim Tzuria ''The Right to Hate'' Nekuda No.15, August 1980 :Israel Ariel ''Things As They Really Are'', Tzfia I, 1985 :''For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel'', Ian S. Lustick, Council on Foreigh Relations, NY,1988 :Uriel Tal ''Foundations of a Political Messianic Trend in Israel'', Jerusalem Post, no. 35, Spring 1985 Also, we need to realize that a mainstream strand within rabbinic Judaism holds that Amalek is not a people, in the narrow sense that Danny and others are using. Other Jewish points of view exist. For instance, Rabbi Moshe Amiel 1883-1946) ruled that one should not understand Amalek as being a particular ethnic group. Rather, he viewed Amalek as the symbol of armed might. In Rabbi Amiel's view, a permanent war prevails between the sword and the book, and "one can only be built on the ruins of the other". [Derashot el Ami, 3.132, 3 volume set, Tel-Aviv, 1964.] This is also the view of many non-Orthodox Jewish rabbis. So we cannot just claim that "Jews today do not identify the Palestinians as Amalek". Some Jews ''do'' make this identification. This ''does not'' mean that they are making a biological identification, nor does it mean that they are advocating genocide. (They certainly are not.) The term has ideological uses beyond the literal meanings of the word. User:RK 00:12, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC) Actually, when it comes to the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, I basically do know everybody, some of them quite well, but that's a long story. I do not deny that the term is used metaphorically. I think that overall we agree, but I reject the notion that there is a halachic equation being made. Paradoxically, just because people are called Amalek doesn't mean that they are believed to be Amalek, with all the implications such a statement would contain. From what you said above, I think you agree with me on this point too. Essentially, the term Amalek has been neutered to some degree in popular discourse to mean "the epitome of evil." Compare, for example, with the statement by the Besht above. I do not know it, but assuming it is accurate, does that mean that the Baal Shem Tov held that all atheists and their descendants should be killed. Similarly, I admit that the far right uses it as hyperbole, but not as halachah (and I don't want to get into a discussion of the ramifications of violating one of the Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach, which is an entirely different story that does not relate to Amalek per se, nor do the mitzvot associated with Kibush Ha'Aretz). One of the sources you quote, for example, is Ariel, who I do happen to know very well (he was a neighbor of mine, and I served with his son in the army--I also studied under him and his brothers Yaakov and Yigal). In a semi-private conversation with him, I heard him say distinctly ''Ein mitzvah laharog Aravim'', with a caveat that I will not repeat here. (Interestingly, that same night he was arrested). As for Amiel, he will have to answer the Rambam (see Hilchot Melachim, 10:1). Again, Amiel is using metaphor, as did the Besht, but there are strict halachic considerations that he is not addressing, such as ''Lo tichayun''. User:Danny 00:21, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) First of all about the meaning of the word: the references given for "valley dweller" are not adequate. They have just copied the theory from somewhere else, probably an earlier compendium which is no better. What is needed is citation of a named respected scholar. After asking a few people who know about stuff like this, I'm pretty sure that the scholarly consensus is "foreign word of unknown meaning". As for traditional imaginative "translations", there are several. As an example, in Midrash Tanhuma, portions Yitro and Ki Tetze, there is the claim that Amalek comes from ''am leq'' "the licking people," with the explanation that the Amalekites were called so because "they came to lick the Israelites' blood like dogs." Such doubtful speculations are taken seriously by very few, but the very fact they exist is proof that there was no generally accepted translation. --User:Zero0000 14:01, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) Regarding modern groups called Amalek: Sometimes it is hard to tell whether a particular identification is intended to be taken literally or not. However, my contacts agree with Danny that a literal identification of a modern group with Amalek is halakically almost impossible. Special mention was made of the statement in the Talmud (Berakhot 26a) that the gentile peoples of the Torah were mixed together beyond recognition, and (critically from a practical point of view) the complete lack of an identification of Arabs with Amalek by any of the traditional authorities. On the other hand, there have been examples where a metaphorical identification with Amalek has been used to excuse violence (by supposing that the mitzvah of extermination refers to Amalek in a metaphorical sense). Examples involving Arabs include some supporters of Baruch Goldstein and a former rabbi of Bar-Ilan University named Israel Hess. --User:Zero0000 14:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) Example of a metaphorical identification: "And Jewish self-respect and honor must be resurrected with an end to the humiliating obscenity of carefree political relations with the Amalek of our times, Germany." (Meir Kahane, Uncomfortable questions for comfortable Jews, 1987) --User:Zero0000 14:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) This is for Danny [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=amalek+valley+dweller&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images] I didn't want to put a million links in here, but he asked where I was getting this idea about "valley dweller" from. Oh, and BTW, I think it would be more than fine if you guys would like to place a differing view of what the word means, maybe even a whole paragraph regarding it. But it is clearly important that some regard it to mean "valley dweller" even if it is innaccurate to translate it that way. User:JackLynch 06:19, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) ==Amalek, father of the Amalekites???== Gen. xiv. 7 refers to Amalekites existing at the time of Abraham, so it is problematic to identify them as descendants of Amalek who lived later. This used to be mentioned but its gone now. --User:Zero0000 01:35, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) Well, I think its mentioned, but strangely. It could actually do with a good deal more discussion, and maybe a whole section devoted to it. I'm really not an expert (or even terribly interested) in this portion of the meaning however, so I doubt I will be doing that (this in no way should be taken to mean that it shouldn't be done ;). User:JackLynch 18:39, 24 Jan 2004 (PST) == Amalekites or Amelekites? == Both spellings occur in the article. I don't know anything about the subject so I'm hesitant to make a change, though I assume that the correct spelling is "Amalekites" (or are there two groups with very similar names? If so, I'm ''completely'' confused!). User:Mariko 03:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Amalekites in the days of Abraham == Firstly the Bible does not mention any Amalekites in the days of Abraham. When discussing the invasion of Chederlaomer in the days of Abraham it talks about the "land of the Amalekites". Bearing in mind that the description of this battle is written not earlier than Moses even from the point of view of Biblical literalists, there is no mystery here. Its like saying that Julius Caesar traveled as far as York in England even though it wasn't called York or England in the time of Caesar. Its called England and York now and it was called "land of the Amalekites" at the time the Bible was written. A Jewish tradition recorded by Nachmanides claims that Amalekites did exist before Amalek the grandson of Esau. The tradition states that Amalek the grandson of Esau was named after an Amalek who had been the founder of the Amalekites. Arab traditions claim that the Amalekites originated in Arabia. User:Kuratowski's Ghost 00:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) :There is quite a bit of information from Arab history about the Amalekites that I am reading up on and will add to the article. The Arab sources relate things not found in Jewish traditions but which sheds light on some odd references to Amalekites in connection with Egypt in Jewish sources. User:Kuratowski's Ghost 23:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Timna and Timnah == I have removed the comment about the Edomite chief of Timnah which attempts to imply a connection with Timna. The names while looking similar in Bible English transliteration are unrelated in the original Hebrew. Timna from the root m-n-` with a gutteral ayin at the end means "restraint", Timnah on the other hand means either "land towards the south" from the the root t-m-n or "alloted portion / gift" from the root m-n-h.
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
A
AB | AC | AD | AE | AF | AG | AH | AI | AJ | AK | AL | AM | AN | AO | AP | AR | AS | AT | AU | AW | AX | AY | AZ |Words begining with Amalek:
Amalek
Amalek
Amalekite
Amalekites
Sponsored links: praca.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
