No community start suggestion yet.
How can the Torah (תורה) command destroying Amalek when genocide violates universal ethics? Amalek represents a unique entity whose sole purpose is destroying others, making them uncontrollable through normal deterrents since they accept even self-destruction. This transforms the mitzvah (מצוה) from genocide into necessary self-defense against a force that forfeited its right to existence.
Rabbi Zweig tackles one of the most challenging ethical questions in Torah (תורה): how can the mitzvah (מצוה) to destroy Amalek be reconciled with the universal condemnation of genocide as a crime against humanity? He begins by noting that after WWII, the Nuremberg trials established genocide as a crime against humanity, arguing that no state has the right to order such actions. This creates an apparent contradiction with the Torah's explicit command to eradicate Amalek. The Rabbi presents the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach as one potential answer: before waging war against Amalek, we must first offer them the opportunity to accept the seven Noahide laws and live in peace. According to this view, the Torah never actually mandates genocide - only the destruction of those who refuse peaceful coexistence. However, the Ravad disagrees, maintaining that Amalek specifically is not offered this option, thus reinstating the original question.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Parsha
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
Up Next in this Series
Why does the Torah emphasize Rivka's Aramean ancestry when describing her marriage to Yitzchok? The shiur reveals that Arameans were master manipulators with extraordinary sensitivity to others' psychology. Rivka inherited this keen insight but channeled it into genuine chesed, which requires understanding what recipients actually need rather than what givers want to provide.
Why does the Midrash connect Pharaoh's expulsion of the Jews to the mitzvah of shiluach hakan? The shiur develops a chiddush that Pharaoh's sin wasn't only drowning the children, but the insensitivity of expelling the parents afterward. The deeper analysis reveals that Pharaoh may have valued the Jews greatly and wanted to control them—making his expulsion an act of tremendous cruelty, not liberation.
Why does Moshe respond to the splitting of the sea with shirah rather than praise or thanksgiving? Rashi's use of "al libo" reveals that shirah is an emotional expression—a response of love to love. When Hashem shows personal care, the only adequate response is "I love You too," not mere gratitude or praise, and this principle applies to all relationships.
Parshas Ki Seitzei 25:17-19
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Why does the Torah separate Avrohom's eulogy for Sarah from his crying for her? The shiur shows that Sarah required a public eulogy focused on the communal loss of a leader, not Avrohom's private grief. This teaches that we must view Jewish tragedies through a national lens first, seeing attacks on Am Yisrael as collective losses that dwarf personal concerns.
