The holiest object in the Temple/Mishkan was the Ark. The cover of the ark had two כרובים (cherubim) on top. What exactly was a כרוב?

The כרובים first appear in Genesis chapter 3 after Adam and Chava are expelled from Gan Eden:

“It was driven out; and east of the garden of Eden were stationed the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.” (Genesis 3:24)

וַיְגָ֖רֶשׁ אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֑ם וַיַּשְׁכֵּן֩ מִקֶּ֨דֶם לְגַן־עֵ֜דֶן אֶת־הַכְּרֻבִ֗ים וְאֵ֨ת לַ֤הַט הַחֶ֙רֶב֙ הַמִּתְהַפֶּ֔כֶת לִשְׁמֹ֕ר אֶת־דֶּ֖רֶךְ עֵ֥ץ הַֽחַיִּֽים׃ (בראשית ג:כד)

The Torah does not give any explanation as to what the כרובים are in Genesis except that they act as some sort of guard or gatekeeper. שמות רבה explains that the כרובים were angels of destruction. חזקוני adds that the very sight of the כרובים would frighten anyone who glanced at the creatures.

The rest of the mentions of כרובים in the Torah refer mostly to those on the Ark and on the curtains of the Mishkan:

“And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them, at the two ends of the cover.” (Exodus 25:18)

וְעָשִׂ֛יתָ שְׁנַ֥יִם כְּרֻבִ֖ים זָהָ֑ב מִקְשָׁה֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה אֹתָ֔ם מִשְּׁנֵ֖י קְצֹ֥ות הַכַּפֹּֽרֶת׃ (שמות כה:יח)

When Shlomo builds the Beit Hamikdash, he places two giant כרובים towering over the Ark:

“And he set the cherubim inside the inner house; and they spread out the wings of the cherubim so that the wing of the one touched one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house.” (1 Kings 6:27)

וַיִּתֵּ֨ן אֶת־הַכְּרוּבִ֜ים בְּתֹ֣וךְ הַבַּ֣יִת הַפְּנִימִ֗י וַֽיִּפְרְשׂוּ֮ אֶת־כַּנְפֵ֣י הַכְּרֻבִים֒ וַתִּגַּ֤ע כְּנַף־הָֽאֶחָד֙ בַּקִּ֔יר וּכְנַף֙ הַכְּר֣וּב הַשֵּׁנִ֔י נֹגַ֖עַת בַּקִּ֣יר הַשֵּׁנִ֑י וְכַנְפֵיהֶם֙ אֶל־תֹּ֣וךְ הַבַּ֔יִת נֹגְעֹ֖ת כָּנָ֥ף אֶל־כָּנָֽף׃ (מלכים א ו:כז)

Later, the כרובים appear in Ezekiel’s vision of the throne of ה׳ in chapter 10:

“And there appeared in the cherubim the form of a man’s hand under their wings.” (Ezekiel 10:8)

וַיֵּרָ֖א לַכְּרֻבִ֑ים תַּבְנִית֙ יַד־אָדָ֔ם תַּ֖חַת כַּנְפֵיהֶֽם׃ (יחזקאל י:ח)

And later:

“And each one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, the second face was the face of a man, the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.” (Ezekiel 10:14)

וְאַרְבָּעָ֥ה פָנִ֖ים לְאֶחָ֑ד פְּנֵ֨י הָאֶחָ֜ד פְּנֵ֣י הַכְּר֗וּב וּפְנֵ֤י הַשֵּׁנִי֙ פְּנֵ֣י אָדָ֔ם וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי֙ פְּנֵ֣י אַרְיֵ֔ה וְהָרְבִיעִ֖י פְּנֵי־נָֽשֶׁר׃ (יחזקאל י:יד)

What the actual כרובים look like is unclear from the text. Rashi, working off of the Aramaic word for כרוב, explains that the כרובים had the face of a young child. Ibn Ezra is not as sure as he looks at the visions of Ezekiel and explains that the כרובים seemed to have different faces. Rashbam believes that the כרובים had bird faces. Interestingly, Moshe must have understood what the כרובים should look like based on the fact that the text itself does not provide any description of the face Nechama Leibowitz Highlights a paradox: the Torah forbids graven images yet commands cherubim. She sees their vagueness as intentional, to stress symbolism over physicality—they represent God’s presence and covenant, not a literal form. Building on this idea, perhaps because the כרובים walked the thin line between an idol and the holiest object in the Mishkan/Temple, the Torah was intentionally vague on their appearance. This is also why in the Second Temple, the aron itself was the only item in the beit hamikdash that was not replaced. Building something so close to idolatry would need to impetus and direction from God alone. Once it was hidden away, man alone could not recreate it.

“All that God tells us to do we will do and we will listen” (Verse 7).

וַיִּקַּח סֵפֶר הַבְּרִית וַיִּקְרָא בְּאָזְנֵי הָעָם וַיֹּאמְרוּ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר ה׳ נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע׃ (שמות כד:ז)

This famous utterance has become symbolic of the selfless trust and blind faith that the people had in God. They agreed to act on the laws of God even before they heard them, goes the popular saying. However, the text itself does not seem to match this grand assumption.

First, the people have twice already responded to declarations of Moshe with “we will do!” In chapter 19, Moshe assembles the Elders and instructs them on the commandments:

“All those assembled answered as one, saying, ‘All that God has spoken we will do!’ And Moses brought back the people’s words to God.” (19:8)

וַיַּעֲנוּ כָל־הָעָם יַחְדָּו וַיֹּאמְרוּ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר ה׳ נַעֲשֶׂה וַיָּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל־ה׳׃ (שמות יט:ח)

In verse 3 of chapter 24, they have a similar reaction:

“Moses went and repeated to the people all the commands of God and all the rules; and all the people answered with one voice, saying, ‘All the things that God has commanded we will do!’”

וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וַיְסַפֵּר לָעָם אֵת כָּל־דִּבְרֵי ה׳ וְאֵת כָּל־הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים וַיַּעַן כָּל־הָעָם קוֹל אֶחָד וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר ה׳ נַעֲשֶׂה׃ (שמות כד:ג)

The affirmation of the people in both of these verses is quite admirable, but it lacks the oomph of “we will do and we will listen.”

The second problem with the popular saying is that the people have already heard many of the commandments before they call this out. Besides the Ten Commandments, the first part of this verse explains outright that Moshe “took the record of the covenant and read it aloud to the people…”

One explanation is that the Torah is not written in order. This chapter actually takes place earlier in chapter 19. This is another perspective of the giving of the Torah in the same way that there were multiple perspectives of creation and the flood story earlier in Genesis. This answer works in many ways, but fails to explain the fact that in this very verse Moshe reads from the scroll to the people.

One possibility is that The addition of “נשמע” (we will listen) signals that law is not static. It requires understanding, interpretation, and engagement—hallmarks of autonomy. Rabbinic tradition turns this into a lifelong process of study (Talmud Torah), making obedience inseparable from intellectual freedom. This is against Kant’s critique of Judaism as heteronomous, namely obedience to external authority and not an autonomous acceptance of the law. The people are saying that they will continue to listen as the law develops and be a part of the listening in the future.

Another possible answer is that this is sequential. Initially, the people voice their support by blindly saying to Moshe that they will act on what God commands. They then hear the Ten Commandments, and in this chapter again repeat their fealty. Now Moshe reads from the record of the covenant. Most commentators interpret this as the manuscript of the Torah covering everything from Genesis until now. This is different from what the people had been given beforehand. Those were just laws. Of course their response would be “we will do” to just laws. Now they are given the whole history of the people in addition to the laws.

Their proclamation then is twofold—first a repetition of their oath to follow the commandments, but now they also add an oath to listen and hear the stories of their past. This sets the tone for the essential elements of Judaism: following ה׳’s law and listening to the stories of the past.

“When you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass wandering, you must take it back. (כִּי תִפְגַּע שׁוֹר אֹיְבְךָ אוֹ חֲמֹרוֹ תֹּעֶה הָשֵׁב תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ) (Verse 4). The Koren Tanach of the Land of Israel notes that the laws of returning lost animals appear in various other cultures in the ancient Near East. The laws of Eshnunna from the northern Mesopotamia region state that an official that seized a stray animal was required to return the animal or it was considered theft. In Hittite laws, a stray domestic animal must be returned as well. The unique part of the law in the Torah is that it specifically calls out the lost animal of “your enemy.” If one is required to return the lost animal of their enemy, by inference one must return the lost animal of one’s friend. Why does the Torah have to mention ox and donkey? The donkey was the primary form of transportation in the Near East. The ox was the primary form of work in the fields. By listing both animals, the Torah explains that one must return both types of animals to their owner. It is also possible that the difference in the animals sets up different locations. Because the ox is a domestic animal, the ox would be found close to someone’s property. If the Torah only listed an ox, one might have assumed that if one finds the animal near the person’s property, then one needs to return it. The donkey as a mode of transportation could be found anywhere. The donkey therefore needs to be listed to explain that an animal found anywhere should be returned. If the Torah only listed the donkey, then one might have assumed that an animal must only be returned when the owner is far from their property and may be stranded if the animal is not returned. Finally, the Gemara deduces from the use of “happen upon” in this verse and “when you see” in the next verse (כִּי תִרְאֶה חֲמֹר שֹׂנַאֲךָ רֹבֵץ תַּחַת מַשָּׂאוֹ וְחָדַלְתָּ מֵעֲזֹב לוֹ עָזֹב תַּעֲזֹב עִמּוֹ) that there is a minimal distance that one is obligated to actively return an animal. If the Torah only said “if you see” then one might be obligated to return an animal that is a mile away wandering around if one can see it that far. By also adding “if you happen upon” the Torah is setting a minimal distance. The Gemara explains that this is about 1/7th of a mil.”

Under U.S. common law, lost property is defined as personal property unintentionally parted from its owner. The finder has rights against everyone except the true owner. Most states have statutes requiring finders to report lost property to authorities; if unclaimed after a set period, ownership may transfer to the finder. Failure to follow these procedures can result in criminal liability for theft. In contrast, English common law historically imposed no such affirmative duty—a finder could keep lost property unless the true owner reclaimed it.

Israeli law, based on Jewish legal principles and civil statutes, obligates a person who finds lost property to attempt to return it to its owner. If the owner cannot be found, the item must be handed over to authorities. The Guardian General Law governs unclaimed property; if no owner or heirs are located, the property is managed by the state and may eventually be transferred to state ownership.

“If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, do not act toward them as a creditor; exact no interest from them.” (Verse 24)

אִם־כֶּ֣סֶף תַּלְוֶ֗ה אֶת־עַמִּי֙ אֶת־הֶ֣עָנִ֣י עִמָּ֔ךְ לֹא־תִהְיֶ֥ה ל֖וֹ כְּנֹשֶׁ֑ה לֹ֥א תְשִׂ֖ימוּן עָלָ֥יו נֶֽשֶׁךְ׃ (שמות כב:כד)

This verse provides a good example of the various laws that can be derived from a single verse. The Gemara in Bava Metzia gleans the following:

1. The fact that the verse says “My people” means that if a Jew and non-Jew come to you to borrow, you should lend to the Jewish person first.

2. The phrase “to the poor among you” teaches that if a poor person and a rich person came to you at the same time to borrow money, you should lend to the poor person first.

3. “The poor among you” also teaches that if a poor relative comes and another poor person, you should lend to the poor relative first.

The concept of lending money appears multiple times in the Torah:

“Do not take from him interest or increase, but fear your God, so that your brother may live with you.” (Leviticus 25:36)

אַל־תִּקַּ֤ח מֵֽאִתּוֹ֙ נֶ֣שֶׁךְ וְתַרְבִּ֔ית וְיָרֵ֖אתָ מֵֽאֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ וְחֵ֥י אָחִ֖יךָ עִמָּֽךְ׃ (ויקרא כה:לו) [biblehub.com]

And again:

“You shall not give him your money on interest, nor give him your food for increase.” (Leviticus 25:37)

אֶ֨ת־כַּסְפְּךָ֔ לֹֽא־תִתֵּ֥ן ל֖וֹ בְּנֶ֑שֶׁךְ וּבְמַרְבִּ֖ית לֹא־תִתֵּ֥ן אָכְלֶֽךָ׃ (ויקרא כה:לז) [biblehub.com]

The Gemara in Bava Metzia explains that someone who violates this law could actually be liable for all three of these verses.

The Rambam in Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Creditor and Debtor 1:1, extrapolates that this verse teaches that it is a positive commandment to lend money to the poor. In addition, lending money to the poor is greater than giving tzedakah. Rambam explains that if someone asks to borrow money, it means they are not yet in such a destitute position that they need to beg. Lending money saves them from becoming destitute. Rambam also derives two negative commandments from this verse:

• A prohibition against asking for repayment of a loan to a poor person when it is known that the individual cannot repay.

• A prohibition against participating in any aspect of a transaction with interest—as lender, recorder, or witness.

“And these are the rules that you shall set before them” (verse 1).

וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם (שמות כא:א)

The chapter (and Parsha of Mishpatim) begins with the word “and.” Why does the Chater begin with “and”? Rashi offers two explainations that the “and” is meant to link the Ten Commandments and this portion to explain that these were also given on Mt. Sinai. His second answer links these civil laws with the preceding laws about the altar to explain that in the future, the Sanhedrin court should be placed in the Temple complex. Ramban explains that this section is linked to the portion in the previous chapter starting in verse 20 about idolatry. Those verses and these verses are linked to the Ten Commandments which also began with spiritual laws and ended with civil laws. The idea is that these verses expand on the Ten Commandments. Sforno gets even more specific. He links the commandment against coveting your neighbor’s property and this section. The commandment was only about one's thoughts, without any action. This chapter discusses actual physical interactions with other people’s property. Chizkuni has a similar idea. The Ten Commandments provided civil laws without consequences. Here, the civil laws are connected to specific consequences. The answer may also be a combination of a few of these.

• Rashi: Holiness and revelation as law’s foundation.

• Ramban: Covenant integrity—law as part of divine relationship.

• Sforno: Ethical interiority—law as moral education.

• Chizkuni: Practical justice—law as a system of consequences.

Perhaps the linkage has to do with the open ended question in the last chapter, it was unclear how to break up the Ten Commandments. Chief among the questions was whether “I ה׳ am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage” (20:2) was the first commandment or an introductory sentence:

אָנֹכִי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים (שמות כ:ב)

If it is described as an introductory sentence, then it links nicely with the start of this chapter and could be read as follows:

“I ה׳ am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage…and these are the rules that you shall set before them / When you acquire a Hebrew slave, that person shall serve six years—and shall go free in the seventh year, without payment.” (20:2, 21:1-2)

וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם. כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד וּבַשְּׁבִעִת יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי חִנָּם (שמות כא:א–ב)

This links up thematically. ה׳ took the people out of Egypt and that provides the authority to set out a new set of rules. Chief among the rules that ה׳ sets out is about slavery. ה׳ took you out of Egypt in order that you shall not be slaves again. The rules of slavery are very strict and delineated. Slavery was an important facet of life in the ancient world (and unfortunately still is in certain cultures). ה׳ does not eliminate the practice, but using the gravitas of the exodus, ה׳ changes the narrative on slavery. That is why this chapter is linked to the Ten Commandments. If ה׳ is setting out to rewrite the rulebook, ה׳ had to show His power through the exodus.

See description in original upload

The Torah refers to them as Ten Commandments in chapter 34, but where do the ten break up? The verses are as follows:

The Torah breaks after verse 6, 7, 11, and 12. 13 is split into four, verse 14 in two. Certain commentators read it differently. Ibn Ezra reads honor thy parents as the fifth with the first five each using God’s name. This reading follows the Talmud (e.g., Makkot 24a), where verse one is Commandment 1, and verse two is commandment 2. Devarim chapter 5 places breaks for the verses of the Commandments the same way as Exodus. Perhaps the Talmud aimed to break up the commandments thematically with the first five being commandments that honor God and the second five honoring people. The commandment to honor parents straddles the two. Perhaps, it is as simple as Ibn Ezra listing the first five using God’s name. Or perhaps the fact that it is unclear further embraces the idea that these ten have no extra significance within the 613 total commandments.

The drama builds in chapter 19 to the giving of the Ten Commandments. In the attached picture from 17th-century Dutch artist Ferdinand Bol, Moshe descends the mountain with the Tablets. This scene depicts when Moshe received the Tablets themselves in a few chapters. Chapter 19 reveals the actual Ten Commandments. But where was Moshe when God gave him the Ten Commandments?

Here’s the chart of Moshe’s movements up and down Mount Sinai in Exodus 19:

Verse Action Moshe’s Position

19:3 Moshe goes up to ה׳ Up

19:7 Moshe goes to the elders Down

19:8 Moshe relays people’s words to ה׳ Unclear (likely Up)

19:9 ה׳ speaks about appearing in a cloud Unclear (possibly Down)

19:10 ה׳ tells Moshe to go to the people Unclear (likely Up)

19:14 Moshe goes down to sanctify the people Down

19:17 Moshe leads people to the foot of the mountain Down

19:19 Moshe speaks, ה׳ answers in thunder Foot of mountain (Down)

19:20 ה׳ descends, calls Moshe up Up

19:21 ה׳ tells Moshe to go down and warn Up

19:24 ה׳ tells Moshe to go down then come up with Ahron Up

19:25 Moshe goes down and speaks to the people Down

Besides the excellent cardio workout, it seems that Moshe ends up talking to God at various points of the mountain and then the Ten Commandments are relayed with Moshe at the bottom of the mountain.

Moshe’s repeated ascents and descents at Sinai mirror Jacob’s vision of the ladder with angels “ascending and descending” (Genesis 28:12), both depicting a bridge between heaven and earth. Just as the angels’ movement symbolizes dynamic connection, Moshe’s motion shows that revelation is not static but a dialogue—God descends while man climbs upward. Sinai, like Jacob’s ladder, teaches that holiness demands both striving toward transcendence and returning to bring Torah into life’s reality.

Perhaps God wants to make clear to the people that God is able to communicate to Moshe at any point on the mountain, and that the revelation is not something secretive that only Moshe can access at the very top.

“Yitro priest of Midian, Moshe’s father-in-law, heard all that God had done for Moses and for Israel, God’s people, how God had brought Israel out from Egypt”

וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹּהֵן מִדְיָן חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה׳ לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ כִּי־הוֹצִיא ה׳ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרָיִם. (שמות יח:א)

Yitro then brings Moshe’s wife and children to meet the Israelites in the wilderness. The two meet and then the text seems to repeat itself:

“Moshe then recounted to his father-in-law everything that God had done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake, all the hardships that had befallen them on the way, and how God had delivered them.”

וַיְסַפֵּר מֹשֶׁה לְחֹתְנוֹ אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה׳ לְפַרְעֹה וּלְמִצְרַיִם עַל אֹדוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת כָּל־הַתְּלָאָה אֲשֶׁר מְצָאָתָם בַּדֶּרֶךְ וַיַּצִּלֵם ה׳. (שמות יח:ח)

“And Yitro rejoiced over all the kindness that God had shown Israel when delivering them from the Egyptians.”

וַיִּחַד יִתְרוֹ עַל כָּל־הַטּוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה׳ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הִצִּילוֹ מִיַּד מִצְרָיִם. (שמות יח:ט)

“‘Blessed be God,’ Yitro said, ‘who delivered you from the Egyptians and from Pharaoh, and who delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians.’”

וַיֹּאמֶר יִתְרוֹ בָּרוּךְ ה׳ אֲשֶׁר הִצִּיל אֶתְכֶם מִיַּד מִצְרָיִם וּמִיַּד פַּרְעֹה אֲשֶׁר הִצִּיל אֶת־הָעָם מִתַּחַת יַד מִצְרָיִם. (שמות יח:י)

The first verse says that Yitro came because he heard everything that God did to the Israelites to take them out of Egypt. Why does Moshe then repeat the same thing and Yitro seems surprised? Was he just being polite to his son-in-law listening to the same story again?

Yitro last appeared in chapter 4. Moshe finally agreed to God’s mission to save the Israelites. He returned to his father-in-law

Moshe then proceeds to bring his wife and children back to Egypt, and then there is the bizarre story with the blood and circumcision at the inn. At some point, Moshe tells his wife and children to return to his father-in-law, either as a result of what happened in the inn, or for fear of what may happen to them in Egypt. When Moshe left, he must have told his father-in-law that Yitro should listen for news of what is happening in Egypt and then bring Tziporah when he hears that the Israelites are free. That is the first verse. Yitro hears about the exodus, his son-in-law’s prediction came true, so he comes to meet him. He is simply watching for the signal and acting on the signal that Moshe gave him. When Moshe sees him, he gives him more color to the story. Note that initially Yitro just heard what God had done for the people and that God brought them out of Egypt. Later, Moshe tells Yitro all that God did to the Egyptians and Pharaoh (presumably the plagues and the splitting of the sea) and then everything that’s happened since that time (presumably the water, the mann, the war with Amalek). It is only after hearing the details that Yitro has his emotional reaction to God.

Rav Soloveitchik interprets Yitro’s hearing as more than passive reception of news. He emphasizes that Yitro heard the ethical and spiritual revolution of the Exodus—that a nation of slaves became a covenantal community under divine law For the Rav, Yitro’s response reflects the universal dimension of Torah: outsiders can recognize its moral grandeur and join in its mission. His coming symbolizes that Torah is not parochial; it speaks to humanity. Yitro heard not only miracles but the call of Sinai, the idea that law and morality are rooted in divine command. To Yitro, the details of the story were not relevant, it was the call that he was answering. That is why Moshe has to repeat the details, and Yitro has such a positive reaction. This second verse is therefore a testament to the pure motivations of Yitro. He didn’t sweat the details. He just headed the call.

Chapter 17 has the first encounter with the sworn enemy of the Israelites—Amalek. Where did Amalek come from? Amalek first appears in the battle between the four kings and five kings in the time of Avraham. The text describes the battle:

“On their way back they came to En mishpat, which is Kadesh, and subdued all the territory of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who dwelt in Hazazon tamar.” (Genesis 14:7) —

וַיָּשֻׁבוּ וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל־עֵין מִשְׁפָּט הִוא קָדֵשׁ וַיַּכּוּ אֶת־כָּל־שְׂדֵה הָעֲמָלֵקִי וְגַם אֶת־הָאֱמֹרִי הַיֹּשֵׁב בְּחַצְצֹן תָּמָר. (בראשית יד:ז)

But this reference seems like an anachronism, because the next time that Amalek appears is the listing of the descendants of Esav.

“Timna was a concubine of Esau’s son Eliphaz; she bore Amalek to Eliphaz. Those were the descendants of Esau’s wife Adah.” (Genesis 36:12) —

וְתִמְנָע הָיְתָה פִילֶגֶשׁ לְאֱלִיפַז בֶּן־עֵשָׂו וַתֵּלֶד לֱאֱלִיפַז אֶת־עֲמָלֵק אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי עָדָה אֵשֶׁת עֵשָׂו. (בראשית לו:יב)

Amalek seems to dwell in the Sinai desert area, somewhere to the south of Canaan. In Numbers 13:29, the spies report that Amalek lives in the south:

“Amalekites dwell in the Negeb region; Hittites, Jebusites, and Amorites inhabit the hill country; and Canaanites dwell by the Sea and along the Jordan.” (Numbers 13:29) —

הָעֲמָלֵקִי יוֹשֵׁב בְּאֶרֶץ הַנֶּגֶב וְהַחִתִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי וְהָאֱמֹרִי יוֹשֵׁב בָּהָר וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי יוֹשֵׁב עַל־הַיָּם וְעַל יַד הַיַּרְדֵּן. (במדבר יג:כט)

When God punishes the group that leaves Egypt by requiring them to wander for 40 years in the desert, a group tries to enter the land of Canaan anyway.

“And the Amalekites and the Canaanites who dwelt in that hill country came down and dealt them a shattering blow at Hormah.” (Numbers 14:45) —

וַיֵּרֶד הָעֲמָלֵקִי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי הַיֹּשֵׁב בָּהָר הַהוּא וַיַּכּוּם וַיִּכְתְּמוּם עַד־הַחָרְמָה. (במדבר יד:מה)

The description in chapter 17 of Exodus of the start of the battle is quite vanilla:

“Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim.” (Exodus 17:8) —

וַיָּבֹא עֲמָלֵק וַיִּלָּחֶם עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּרְפִידִם. (שמות יז:ח)

But the word “VaYavo”—“and he/they came”—is deliberate. As mentioned above, Amalek is a descendant of Esav. In the story of Esav selling his birthright to Yaakov, the text uses similar language:

“Once when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in (VaYavo) from the open, famished.” (Genesis 25:29) —

וַיָּזִיד יַעֲקֹב נָזִיד וַיָּבֹא עֵשָׂו מִן־הַשָּׂדֶה וְהוּא עָיֵף. (בראשית כה:כט)

It seems that Amalek serves a dual role here. On the one hand, Amalek represents the lineage of Esav. Isaac’s blessing contained the promise that when one son was ascendant the other would descend. Therefore, Amalek would thrive when the Israelites were down. On the other hand, it seems like Amalek plays the role of spoiler and containment for the Israelites. In chapter 17, the Israelites once again complain to God. Right after, Amalek attacks. The weakened position of the people and God causes this friction that opens the door for Amalek. Similarly, later on in Numbers, the people believe the spies, and lose the protection of God. When they try to advance anyway, it is once again Amalek that serves as the messenger of God in containing them. The ambiguity surrounding Amalek’s location—sometimes in the Negev, sometimes near Sinai, and even hinted at in patriarchal times—underscores a deeper truth: Amalek is not just a tribe bound to geography but an idea that emerges wherever Israel is vulnerable. Their elusive presence mirrors their enduring role as a historical and spiritual adversary, appearing in moments of weakness to challenge Israel’s destiny.More on Amalek in Deuteronomy 25…