Amalek's Attack: False Weights and the Fear of God

Full Summary

This shiur examines three interconnected questions about Amalek's attack on the Jewish people. First, why does Rashi (רש"י) connect Amalek's attack specifically to the sin of false weights and measures, rather than more seemingly serious transgressions? Second, what drives Amalek to engage in essentially self-destructive behavior - a 'kamikaze attack' where they knew they would be destroyed while inflicting minimal damage? Third, how can the Torah (תורה) criticize Amalek for not fearing God when fear of God is not one of the seven Noahide laws? The key insight centers on understanding two types of 'fear of God.' While Gentiles are not obligated in the mitzvah (מצוה) of emotional awe and love of God required of Jews, they must recognize that their actions have eternal consequences - that God cares about their behavior. This recognition creates a relationship with the eternal, which is fundamental to human existence itself. Without this connection, a person doesn't truly feel they exist. Amalek represents the archetype of the 'letz' (scoffer/cynic) who believes nothing is absolute, that God's laws are merely suggestions with no real consequences. This leads to moral relativism where the individual becomes the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. The Hebrew word 'letz' itself, composed of lamed (learned) and tzadi (righteous), indicates one who sees himself as the source of wisdom and righteousness. Interestingly, Amalek historically lived alongside the Canaanites, who represent the opposite extreme - the 'pesi' (naive fool) who believes everything matters absolutely, even trivial distinctions. Both groups actually share the same fundamental flaw: neither truly understands what constitutes absolute reality versus relative concerns. False weights and measures specifically trigger Amalek's attack because this sin reflects the same moral relativism. The perpetrator thinks: 'If no one knows they're being cheated, what's the harm?' This attitude suggests that absolute moral standards don't exist - that only tangible, immediate harm matters. Such thinking indicates the person has internalized some level of Amalek's philosophy. The Torah's language is deliberately ambiguous when describing who 'did not fear God,' suggesting that the Jewish people also bore some responsibility through their moral compromises. Amalek could only attack successfully because the Jews had adopted some degree of relativistic thinking themselves. This analysis extends to contemporary moral issues, where society redefines terms to justify desired behaviors - calling murder 'euthanasia' or adultery by other names. When humans become the ultimate arbiters of morality rather than recognizing absolute divine standards, any behavior can be rationalized. The scoffer's ultimate tragedy is not just moral blindness, but the deep psychological emptiness of believing nothing truly matters - leading inevitably to self-destructive behavior.