What are the implications of "be'Hani'ach Hashem ... mi'Kol Oyvecha mi'Saviv"?
Rashi (in Tehilim): Even before having given them respite from their enemies, Hashem commanded Yisrael a. to give Bikurim, T'rumos and Ma'asros, and b. to appoint a king, to destroy Amalek and to build the Beis Hamikdash.
Bechor Shor: It implies that, after we establish a king on the throne of Yisrael, which is synonymous with the Throne of Hashem, we are commanded to destroy Amalek. He attacked us when we were weary, and we will avenge this when Hashem revives us from our weariness. 1
Ibn Ezra: It implies that the Mitzvah to destroy Amalek will come into effect after Yisrael have captured the land and quiet reigns. 2
As the Torah writes in Beshalach, Shemos 17:16 - "Ki Yad al Keis Kah".
Ibn Ezra: Because as long as they were fighting the enemy that was close by, they were not obligated to go and fight Amalek.
Why did Hashem command us to leave Amalek until last?
Oznayim la'Torah: Because that is how one fights wars - first one deals with the small enemies that are close to home, and then one settles with the bigger enemy. 1
See Oznayim la'Torah, DH 'Vehayah be'Hani'ach ... '.
What are the implications of "Timcheh es Zeicher Amalek"?
Rashi and Seforno: It implies that one should wipe out 'men and women, children and babies, oxen and sheep', 1 so that no memory of Amalek remains, even animals (even wood and stones - Midrash) 2 ? about which people will be able to say 'This belonged to Amalek!' 3
Targum Yonasan: 'Erase the remembrance of Amalek from under the heaven ? even in the days of Mashi'ach. 4
Sifri: It means 'so that not a child or a grandchild, not a camel nor a donkey, underneath the sky remains - that no-one should be able to declare 'This is a camel that belongs to Amalek!'
Seforno: As Hashem commanded Sha'ul (in Shmuel 1, 15:3).
See Torah Temimah, note 206.
Seforno: To avenge the Honor of Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu, Whom Amalek insulted.
See Nosei Klei Yonasan here and Na'ar Yonasan in Sh'mos, 14:16.
Having written "Zachor", why does the Torah add "Lo Tishkach"?
Targum Yonasan: To remind us not to forget what Amalek did, even in the time of Mashi'ach. 1
Sifri: Refer to 25:17:2:1.
Refer to Bamidbar, 24:20:3:5.
What if an Amaleki wants to convert?
Rosh: We are still obligated to kill him! When the ben Ger Amaleki told David about Sha'ul's death, David replied (Shmuel 2, 1:16) "Picha Anah v'cha" - I am obligated to kill you due to your admission). 1 Mechilta (Sof Beshalach),
Ramban (Hilchos Melachim 6:4): If the seven nations and Amalek did not make Shalom with us, we must kill all of them. This is only if they do not make Shalom... 2 Ra'avad - they must make Shalom and accept Mitzvos. (If not, we must kill them).
Tanchuma (Ki Seitzei 18) and Pesikta, 8: Hashem swore never to accept converts from Amalek, as the Torah wrote in Beshalach Shemos 17:16 "Milchamah la'Hashem ba'Amalek mi'Dor Dor".
The Pasuk continues "Leimor Anochi Mosati es Mashi'ach Hashem." The Radak and others explain that David killed him because he killed Sha'ul. Even if that was the only reason, we cannot extrapolate that they permit accepting converts from Amalek; perhaps "Amaleki" means that his father lived there. (PF)
Ein Zocher (3:1): The Rambam does not rule like the Mechilta (Refer to 25:19:151:1), since it is the opinion of R. Eliezer, who was from Beis Shamai). Also, R. Eliezer ha'Modai holds that the Shevu'ah was not that we may not accept converts from them. In the Pesikta, R. Eliezer ben Ya'akov agrees with R. Eliezer; perhaps the Ramban's text there said 'R. Eliezer'; also there are printing mistakes in the Pesikta, so we rely on the Mechilta. Also the Gemara disagrees. It says that Haman's grandchildren taught Torah (Gitin 57b). Or, perhaps there is no argument. The Mechilta means that a Beis-Din of experts may not accept them, but if a Beis Din of commoners accepted them, Bedi'eved the conversion is valid. Daf Al ha'Daf (57b) - we cannot learn from the Gemara, because perhaps the grandchildren's mother was from Amalek, so they were not considered Amalekim. Einei Kol Chai (Sanhedrin 96b) - perhaps Haman's descendants were accepted after Sancheriv mixed up the world; afterwards, it was known via Ru'ach ha'Kodesh that his descendants taught Torah.
Why are we obligated to destroy Amalek?
Malbim; Because whereas all [other] wars are fought for one of five reasons: 1. To conquer land, or to protect one's land against an invading enemy - But Amalek attacked Yisrael while they were travelling! 2. To prevent an army from passing through one's land (like we find by Sichon and Og_ - . But Yisrael were far from their territory! 3. Due to a fall-out among nations - But they had had no previous dealings with Yisrael! 1 4. To demonstrate their strength and prowess in battle - But Amalek attacked the weakest segment of Yisrael! 5. They hope to find favor in the eyes of their gods by destroying those who do not believe in ithem. But Amalek did not fear [any] god! 2 Amalek attacked Yisrael a. in order to deny Hashem - after the wonders that Hashem did for Yisrael, they wanted to prove that He cannot save them, and that Moshe was merely an expert astrologer and a witch, and b. because they bore the hatred of Ya'akov of their ancestor Eisav. 3
Perhaps they bore the hatred for Yisrael of their matriarch (Timna), who wanted to convert but Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov all rejected her (Sanhedrin 99b)! The Malbim himself will shortly explain that they bore Eisav's hatred for Ya'akov! This requires investigation (PF).
Refer to 25:18:5:3*.
Consequently, Amalek had lost all rights to survive in this world, and their only purpose was to be destroyed.
