04 Mar AMALEK RETURNS: WHEN HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF THE ROOTS OF ANTI-ISRAEL HOSTILITY

Several threads come
together at this time of
year.
First, last Shabbat we
read the Torah’s
command to
remember Amalek—
the nation that
attacked us without provocation, whose hatred
represents a deeper spiritual war against the
very existence and mission of the Jewish
people.
Second, the holiday of Purim, when we faced
the decree of Haman, a direct descendant of
Amalek, who rose to power within the Persian
Empire—what we would call today Iran.
Thirdly. We confront in our own time the
hostility of the Iranian regime, which openly
threatens the destruction of the Jewish nation
and echoes the same genocidal language of a
“final solution”.
Who Is Amalek?
Amalek identified as the son of Eliphaz, who
was the son of Esav and ancestor of the
Edomites. He was born to Eliphaz and his
pilegesh- Timna.
The Amalekites are later referenced after the
Israelites departed from Egypt, accompanied
by nany open miracles that gained recognition
globally. Despite the widespread awareness of
these miracles, Amalek chose to defy the
prevailing fear and engage in battle against us.
Despite the awareness that they would not
survive, they deemed it worthwhile to confront
and diminish the fear instilled in the nations,
accepting their own demise as a means to “cool
down,” so to speak, the apprehension among
other nations.
Because Amalek was the first to confront Israel
in battle, Bilaam, in his prophecy, refers to
Amalek as “the first of nations.”
In the biblical narrative, King Shaul and the
conflict with the Amalekites are described in
the First Book of Shmuel, (chapter 15). Hashem
commanded Shaul to completely destroy the
Amalekite people, including men, women,
children, and livestock, as a divine punishment
for their earlier hostility towards the Israelites
during their Exodus from Egypt.
However, Shaul did not fully carry out this
command. Despite destroying many of the
Amalekites, he spared their king, Agag, and
some of the best livestock.
As a result of Shaul’s disobedience, Shmuel
declared that Hashem had rejected him as king
over Israel.
The Amalekites continued to be a recurring
enemy of the Israelites throughout biblical
history.
Amalek in later Generations
In subsequent generations, we encounter
Haman, who was a descendant of Amalek, once
again in Persia during the reign of King
Achasverosh. The discovery of Haman is
mentioned in Megilat Esther as “Haman the
Agagi,” meaning from the Agagite family.
Agag is openly mentioned in the Book of
Shmuel as a king of the Amalekites. Therefore,
Haman is a descendant of Agag, the king of
Amalek.
We encounter the Amalekite once again in

recent times, specifically in Germany. The
Vilna Gaon, who lived over 200 years ago,
asserted that Germany are the descendents of
Amalek. In the book “Yerushatenu,” (’ח חלק
Hamburger Binyamin Rabbi) עמוד קצו והלאה
cites various rabbis who affirmed this
perspective. Among them, Rabbi Eliezer from
Lezinsk and Rabbi Zusha from Manipoli,
eminent Chasidic figures, were the first to
express the idea that the Germans embody
Amalek. This viewpoint is also echoed in the
writings of the Sfat Emet and Avnei Nezer.
It’s striking to note that both Iran and parts of
Europe were historically linked with the term
“Aryan.” The name Iran itself is connected to
an ancient word meaning “land of the Aryans,”
and in later European history the term “Aryan”
was also used in connection with Germans.
Modern DNA-based research has also pointed
to a strong genetic connection—and therefore
shared ancestry—between populations in
northern India, Persia (Iran), and Eastern
Europe, especially Ukraine and Poland,
showing that Ukrainians as well are connected
to that broader Aryan/Indo-European ancestry.
This helps explain the deep-seated hostility that
has existed historically among Ukrainians and
Poles toward the Jewish people.
The story of Amalek and Esav descendants
reveals that the battle against Israel is often not
merely a dispute over borders or power, but a
deeper attempt to sever the Jewish people from
their identity, their Torah, and their bond with
Hashem.
Let’s take a closer look at the meaning behind
all of this:
“There Is One Nation…” — Haman’s
Strategy: Cutting Israel Off from Hashem
“Haman said to King Achashverosh: There is
one nation scattered and separated among the
peoples throughout all the provinces of your
kingdom. Their laws are different from every
other nation, and they do not follow the king’s
laws. It is not worthwhile for the king to tolerate
them.”
Haman wasn’t just making a political argument.
He was building a case to destroy the Jewish
people by portraying them as outsiders who
don’t belong—and more importantly, as a
nation no longer protected by their G-d.
The Gemara (Megillah 13b) describes how
Haman tried to persuade Achashverosh step by
step: Haman: “let’s wipe them out.”
Achashverosh: “I’m afraid of their G-d. He
might do to me what He did to earlier kings.”
Haman: “Don’t worry—‘yashno’… they’ve
fallen asleep from the mitzvos.”
Achashverosh: “But they have rabbis among
them.”
Haman: “Still, they are one nation.”
In other words: Achashverosh feared Divine
punishment. Haman’s response was meant to
remove that fear by claiming the Jewish people
were no longer connected to Hashem in a
meaningful way.
What Does “Yeshno” Mean? Two Readings
The word “yeshno” sounds simple—“there
is”—but Chazal read much more into it.
The Maharsha explains two meanings:
1) They “changed” the mitzvot
From the root of shinui (change):

Haman argued that the Jews distort or alter
their mitzvot and don’t keep them properly.
2) They are “sleeping” from the mitzvot
From the word sheinah (sleep):
Haman claimed the Jews are spiritually
asleep—careless and disconnected from
mitzvah observance.
This same tactic—disconnecting Israel from
Hashem—reappears later in history in the
world’s two major religions: Christianity and
Islam.
Both religions build a theological argument
that the Jewish people are no longer living as
the true nation of Hashem—but they frame it
differently.
Islam’s Claim: “The Jews Are Still
Obligated—They Just Don’t Keep It”
Islam generally argues that the Jewish people
are still obligated in the mitzvot given at Sinai,
but that they abandoned them.
One famous example appears in Islamic
tradition (in the Qur’an and Hadith):
that Allah punished Jews for violating
Shabbat—especially through fishing—by
transforming them into monkeys and pigs.
Because of this, in many Muslim societies
throughout history, Jews were insulted and
dehumanized with those labels.
In this approach, the accusation is:
“You are still bound to the Torah, but you’re
failing it.”
That is essentially: “They are sleeping from the
mitzvot.”
Christianity’s Claim: “The Jews Changed the
Mitzvot since the Mitzvot Are No Longer
Required”
Christianity, from its earliest foundations,
argued something very different:
Not only are Jews accused of failing to keep the
Torah properly—
Christian theology claims that the mitzvos are
no longer binding or required at all.
Christianity introduced a doctrine that became
one of its central ideas:
Replacement Theology
A teaching that claims the Jewish people lost
their status as the true “Israel,” and that the
Church replaced them.
One of the most influential early Christian
theologians, Justin Martyr, argued that once the
Jews rejected their messiah, they were no
longer the real Israel.
He described Jews as “Israel of the flesh,”
while Christians became “Israel of the spirit.”
So when the Torah says Hashem is the G-d of
Israel, this ideology effectively claims:
Hashem has abandoned His nation—“He is
sleeping from them.”
And once mitzvot are declared “cancelled,” the
only thing left is belief in their messiah:
• whoever believes is “saved”
• whoever does not believe is rejected
That is the Christian version of: “They changed
the mitzvot.”
The Maharal’s Deep Explanation: Amalek and
the Battle Over “Who Leads”
This concept is powerfully illuminated by the
Maharal in a completely different context—his
explanation of Amalek.
The Torah commands: “Remember what
Amalek did to you on the way when you left

Egypt… how
he happened
upon you on the way and attacked the weakest
among you…”
Rashi explains the phrase “asher karcha
baderech” as connected to impurity and
corruption.
The Maharal (Gur Aryeh) explains why
Amalek’s attack specifically expressed itself in
a humiliating, corrupting way:
All nations were created to serve a Divine order
in which Israel is meant to lead, as the Torah
says: “You will rule over many nations, and
they will not rule over you.”
When Israel lives up to its mission, the world
has structure and unity.
But when Israel weakens spiritually, the nations
rise over them.
Israel and the nations as a “relationship model”
The Maharal describes the relationship between
Israel and the nations using the metaphor of
male and female roles—meaning leadership
and dependence, not physical identity.
• When Israel follows the torah it leads, Israel is
the “giver” and the nations are the “receiver.”
• When Israel falls, the nations take control and
Israel becomes weakened.
Amalek is different
Amalek is not willing to be part of that order at
all.
Amalek refuses to accept Israel’s role, and
therefore Amalek’s struggle is not just
political—it is a rebellion against the spiritual
structure of the world.
That is why Amalek represents a uniquely
hostile force:
a nation that doesn’t just hate Israel, but fights
the very idea that Israel has a Divine mission.
How This Connects Back to Christianity
This is where the parallel becomes striking:
Replacement Theology is not merely saying:
“Israel is wrong,” or “Israel sinned.”
It is claiming something far more radical:
“We are the true Israel now.”
No other nation in history made that claim the
way Christianity did.
It is a direct challenge to Israel’s spiritual
“firstborn” status and mission.
Islam, by contrast, did not usually claim “we
are Israel.”
Instead, Islam claimed:
Hashem replaced Judaism with a newer “true
religion,” and labeled the Torah’s system as
outdated or cancelled.
The Core Idea: Haman’s Old Lie in New
Clothing
Haman’s argument was never just:
“They’re different,” or “they don’t fit in.”
His deeper claim was:
The Jews are no longer connected to their G-d.
Once that connection is questioned, everything
becomes easier:
• it becomes easier to hate
• easier to justify persecution
• easier to spill innocent blood
That is why this argument keeps returning
throughout history—
because it is the most dangerous form of
antisemitism:
not only attacking Jews, but attacking the bond
between the Jewish people and Hashem.