Dear R. Lamm, Yasher koach on your paper on the problematics of the mitzvah to destroy Amelek. I have given much thought to this issue, as it poses a severe moral and theological problem. Of course I am in sympathy with your “apologetics,” as you term it, and marvel at the energy you devoted to the issue. I prefer a more elegant approach, one that ultimately provides a more powerful argument. I am now traveling and don’t have the precise notes from a lecture that I gave to the U. of Chicago Divinity School and to a number of shuls in the metropolitan area and Boston. Here is my best attempt to reproduce the outline of the argument: 1. Along with you, I remain unconvinced by R. Moshe’s and the Rav’s reading in Rambam distinguishing between Amelek and the 7 nations. As you point out, the textual evidence is weak and empirically it makes no sense to say that Sanherev intermingled all the nations except for Amelek. I will speculate about what was really bothering the Soloveitchiks later, but let’s leave them aside for now. 2. Hazal did sense the moral problem with the mitzvah of killing innocent persons, as a literal reading of the mitzvah demands. [Your point that this also troubled the Torah is well taken.] This may be why R. Yehoshua laid down the principle that after Sanherev it was simply impossible, for technical reasons, to implement the mitzvah. The principle is actually irrational or at least unscientific, as it precludes any later empirical data identifying persons as Amelek or Canaanite. I have a different scenario.

Dear Eugene: We have not met in a long time, but your letter of congratulations upon my retirement from YU, and the kind words you expressed about me, are unforgettable. We have met now and then during past years, and I am eager to know how you are and how you are getting along. Cordially yours, Norman Lamm