There's ambivalence in this text---blot out the memory of the tribe of Amalek vs. "do not forget". Not forgetting implies a continuing mental activity, but if the memory has been erased, there's nothing to "not forget." In any case, where's the command to blot out the people?!

Rabbi Rosenstein's commentary raises important questions, but I don’t think goes far enough to engage them.

First of all it is important to recognize that there are different, conflicting standards at work here. Both the order of exterminating the Amalekites and the slaughter at the end of the Megilla are one part of a pre-Rabbinic, much less compassionate Judaism.

Even in the Tanach there is not one consistent standard, as along side the order to exterminate the Amalekites and seven nations of Canaan, are humane laws of war, such as that you have to warn the enemy before attacking, so that non-combatants can flee—which I believe influenced Israeli policy in the recent Gaza battle.

Rabbinic Judaism resolved this contradiction by rejecting the Biblical views of zero sympathy for the enemy. As I mentioned in another thread, the First Century great liberal Yehoshua ben Chanania said that all the seven nations no longer existed. And the general view, with exceptions, was also that the Amalekites were no more. And the Rabbis built a theory of just war, based on the more humane passages on war in the Torah.

The change in view of the Rabbinic Judaism is illustrated by the "song of the sea". There, in the Torah, is the great song of rejoicing over the drowning of Pharaoh's army in the sea. In the Rabbinic midrash, God admonishes the angels for rejoicing, as those Egyptians destroyed are His creatures, too.
Beruriah's brilliant interpretation of the end of Psalm 104 is not naïve, because she never advocates prayer as the only way to overcome enemies. That’s not the issue, because her husband Rabbi Meir was only praying in any case. The issue she engages in that passage is whether a prayer for the death of sinful enemies is proper. She says the proper prayer is instead for the death of their sinning.

Since, as Beruriah would have been fully aware, Rabbis advocated the right of self-defense, Rabbi Rosenstein is doing Beruriah an injustice in reading this as advocating prayer instead of action, or as an advocacy of being “nice”, which is also not in the passage and not implied by it.

The belief in the Talmud is that the prayers of great Rabbis such as Meir were particularly effective, so the report that Rabbi Maier’s prayer was effective in getting the gangsters to repent—a little incredible to our ears—is testimony to that, not any general advocacy of doing nothing and just praying.

I think rather that Beruriah is part of a Rabbinic approach which looks for creative ways to solve human conflict through understanding, rather than just attack, attack, attack. For example the great principle of judging all l’chaf zechut, in a favorable light (Avot 1:6) says we should try to construct a sympathetic understanding on the other’s actions. And Hillel’s saying that we should first put ourselves in another’s place before judging (Avot 2:5) goes the same direction.

I think all these views are a precursor of the contemporary view of the importance of “soft power.” Indeed, if we have an enemy, such as Hamas, the only option to the silly one of being ‘nice’ or to killing all of them—the Biblical way—is through soft as well as hard power. We need to understand what they want, what they need, what is their view of the situation. Then we can take actions in addition to military ones that will make a difference. We have the evidence now before us how the US in Iraq failed miserably trying to use only military force, and then when it turned to combining it with soft power have been much more successful in building peace.

Thank you, Mark, for the appreciative note. You never know with these posts whether they are just vanishing into the electronic ether, or are being read and liked or not. I do appreciate the response.

Joseph, the view you give that the commandment to wipe out Amalek has expired is indeed the general Rabbinic view. However, there is a minority who rejects it, according to this very interesting discussion by Rabbi Marc Gopin:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/crdc/docs/j_limitsofwar_and_cr.html#_ftnref6

And I recently had a discussion in which a Lubovicher appealed to the commandment in relation to wiping out Hamas:

http://blogs.rj.org/reform/2009/02/the-lubovicher-and-the-shiite.html

So unfortunately this is still a live issue.