Comentario sobre Exodo 17:8

ויבא עמלק THEN CAME AMALEK — Scripture places this section immediately after this preceding verse (they said, “Is the Lord among us or not?”) to imply, “I am ever among you and ready at hand for every thing you may need, and yet you say, “Is the Lord among us or not?” By your lives, I swear that the hound (Amalek) shall come and bite you, and you will cry for Me and then you will know where I am!” A parable: it may be compared to a man who carried his son upon his shoulder, and went out on a journey. The son saw an article and said, “Father, pick up that thing and give it to me”. He gave it to him, and so a second time and so also a third time. They met a certain man to whom the son said, “Have you seen my father anywhere?” Whereupon his father said to him, “Don’t you know where I am?” — He, therefore, cast him off from himself and a hound came and bit him (Midrash Tanchuma, Yitro 3).

ויבא עמלק, at the sound of the people’s being frustrated with thirst. This is what Moses meant when he recalled the incident 40 years later in Deuteronomy 25,18 describing the Israelites’ state of mind at the time as ואתה עיף ויגע, “you were tired and worn out.” We find the expression עיף linked to water also in Job 22,7 לא מים עייף תשקה, “You do not give the thirsty water to drink.” (Eliphaz accusing Job) We also find the word applied to earth itself in Isaiah 32,2 בארץ עיפה, “in a languishing land.”

ויבא עמלק וילחם עם ישראל, Amalek came and fought with Israel, etc. G'd punished the people for having neglected Torah which is compared to both fire and water (compare Jeremiah 23,29: "Behold My word is like fire"). The fiery sword and the thirst for water were the punishment which fitted the crime.

Places this section adjacent. . . It is surprising that Rashi brings this Midrash, as he only brings Midrashim explaining adjacent sections when the sections are written out of sequence. But here they need to be adjacent because both incidents occurred in the same place. (Re”m) Gur Aryeh explains that Rashi [brings the Midrash because he] is answering the question: Why did it not say, “Amalek went out,” as in (Devarim 2:32), “Sichon went out to war against us”? Therefore Rashi explains: “The Torah places this section adjacent to the previous verse. . . that the dog (Amaleik) will come and bite you. . ..” [In other words, it says] “Amaleik came” because they asked, “Is Hashem among us or not?” [Another explanation:] I wrote many times that Rashi only explains why verses are adjacent when there are extra words. Therefore Rashi comments here about the juxtaposition. Rashi is answering the question: Is “In Rephidim” not superfluous? It is written in v. 17:1, “They camped in Rephidim.” And it is written in 19:2, “They journeyed from Rephidim.” Consequently, whatever happened in between occurred in Rephidim. Perforce, “In Rephidim” is written here to tell us that the incident occurred in Rephidim [i.e., the verse of, “They tested Hashem, saying, ‘Is Hashem among us or not?’”] caused that “Amaleik came.” And that is why Rashi says, “Adjacent to the previous verse,” rather than, “Adjacent to the previous section.” Rashi is explaining the juxtaposition [of “Amaleik came”] specifically regarding this verse. (Nachalas Yaakov)

VV. 8.—16. Alle Erfahrungen, die das zum Gottesvolke bestimmte Israel seit seinem Eintritte in die Wüste bisher gemacht, Mara, Wachteln, Manna, Schabbat, Wasser aus dem Felsen, lehrten es seine künftige Stellung zu der Natur kennen, lehrten es, welche Unabhängigkeit von den Naturgewalten es mit alleiniger Unterwerfung unter den Willen des Einzigen zu gewinnen haben solle. Eine Erfahrung war noch in diesen Vorbereitungswochen für die Gesetzempfängnis zu machen übrig: die Stellung des künftigen Gottesvolkes als Volk unter den Völkern, seine Stellung zu den Menschengewalten und für die Zukunft der Menschengewalt. Diese Erfahrung sollte ihnen noch in Refidim werden; ihr Lehrmittel war Amalek.

ויבוא עמלק, Amalek came;” it is difficult to understand why Amalek, if he was keen on attacking the Israelites, had waited until after they had been so miraculously saved from the Egyptians. He would have had a much easier target when the seventy people making up Yaakov’s family were on their way to Egypt. The answer may be that when G–d said to Avraham (Genesis 15,13) ועבדום וענו אותם, “they will serve them and they (their masters) will abuse them,” that as soon as Avraham would die this prophecy would be come applicable to Yitzchok and upon Yitzchok’s death it would devolve on Yaakov and his children. Amalek may have reasoned that if he were to wipe out Yaakov and family, this curse would devolve upon him. He therefore waited until the 400 years were up according to his calculation, before attacking the descendants of Avraham.

ויבא עמלק, “Amalek came;” where did Amalek come from? Our verse must be understood in terms of what we have been told in Genesis 36,6, where Esau and all his clans are reported as having moved away from the land of Canaan, after the reconciliation which included Esau’s ceding the claim to the land of Canaan to his brother Yaakov’s descendants. At that time Rashi explained that Esau, aware of the promise and curse G-d had made toAvraham at the covenant between the pieces in Genesis chapter 15, the promise of taking over the land of Canaan had been made conditional on Abraham’s descendants having been strangers and part of that time even slaves, for 400 years. Esau decided then to forego the promise in order to escape the curse of the 400 year wait. His descendants, one of whom was his grandson Amalek, realised that the 400 years had elapsed and that by now the only thing that was left was the promise. He therefore decided that as the older son of Yitzock’s descendant, to stake his claim by force. He was also aware that his grandfather had been motivated to leave the land of Canaan as he had looked like a great fool for having sold his birthright, which had given Yaakov, as the firstborn, a claim to the land of Canaan. He believed the time was ripe then, especially while the Israelites were in noman’s land, land that they had no claim to, would not enjoy preferential treatment by G-d in such an encounter.

Wie Esaws Genius einst Jakob, Israels Ahn, auf dem Wege zur eigenen Selbständigkeit in nächtlichem Angriff das ganze ringende Geschick und den endlichen, Gott verkündenden Sieg durchleben ließ, den Esaws Kinder Jakobs Söhnen während der Nachtjahrhunderte der Volksgeschichte bereiten würden: so war Esaws Enkel, Amalek, das erste und einzige Volk, das Jakobs Enkeln, Israel, auf ihrem Zuge zur nationalen Selbständigkeit, ungereizt und unbedroht, sich mit feindlichem Angriff entgegenwarf. Wie עיף ויגע, wie wanderungsmüde und schwach auch dieses mit Weib und Kindern eine Heimat suchende Familienvolk erschien, die Gottesmacht, die schirmend und leitend über ihnen schwebte, war so imposant sichtbar geworden, dass ihr Schrecken alle übrigen Völker, selbst die zunächst bedrohten, lähmte. Philistäa fürchtete, Edom blieb bestürzt, Moab zitterte, Kanaan war ganz verzagt, nur Amalek eilte, völlig unprovoziert, herbei, um das Ruhmeswagnis und den Kampf mit der Macht zu bestehen, der selbst ein Pharao erlegen. Es allein לא ירא אלקי׳, fürchtete Gott nicht. Es allein war der Erbe jenes Geistes, der sich das Schwert zum Anteil erkor, der den Ruhm in blutigem Lorbeer, und der das נעשה לנו שם, mit welchem der alte Nimrod die Weltgeschichte eröffnet, in Vernichtung des Volksglücks und Zerstörung des Menschenheils zu verwirklichen sucht. Diese Ruhm suchende Gewalt ist der erste und letzte Feind des Menschenheils und des Gottesreiches auf Erden. Pharaonische, Interessen suchende Gewalt hat noch Interesse an der Erhaltung der Geknechteten und kann selbst ein Freund der Freiheit werden, wenn die Freiheit in ihrem Interesse wuchert. Amaleks Ruhm suchendes Schwert hat keine Ruhe, so lange noch ein Puls in ihm nicht huldigender Freiheit schlägt, so lange noch ein bescheidenes Glück blüht, das vor seiner Gewalt nicht zittert. — Ebenbürtige, gleich ihm schwertgerüstete Gewalt hasst Amalek nicht, sieht vielmehr in solcher Rüstung nur achtende Furcht vor seinem Schwerte, bekriegt, aber achtet, was ihn anerkennt und dem gleichen Prinzipe huldigt. Da aber sieht er einen Gegenstand tödlichen Hasses und gründlicher Verachtung, wo man es wagt, das Schwert entbehrlich zu finden, wo man geistig-sittlichen Mächten zu vertrauen wagt, von denen das Schwert ebensowenig eine Ahnung hat, als es sie zu erreichen vermag. In dem Vertreter der friedlichen Hoheit des Menschen sieht es den Hohn seines Prinzips, sieht es seinen einzigen Gegner und ahnt es seinen einstigen Sturz. Mit dem sichern Instinkt des Hasses eilt daher Nimrod-Amalek herbei, den Herold dieser geistig sittlichen Friedenshoheit des Menschen gleich bei seinem ersten Auftreten in der Völkergeschichte zu zertreten. Amalek kam und bekriegte Israel in Refidim. Vielleicht, wenn nicht Israels Gott versuchender Kleinmut Refidims Umwandlung zu einer Wasser bietenden Lagerstätte veranlasst hätte, wäre Israel schon längst nach Horeb weiter geführt worden und Amalek hätte es nicht mehr in Refidim getroffen. So aber hatte Israel diese neue angstvolle Erfahrung zu bestehen.