Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 141

Thursday, March 1 2001

• Elevators and Shabbos
• Re: Sechorah with Amaleik (from Areivim was Nazis/PLO)
• Voss Iz Der Chilluk? #2: MC vol. 1 p. 102: Initial Summary
• RE: Rt, Mincha/Maariv
• Re: Derivatives of Avodo Zoro and linguistic kvetchin
• Women, Tefillin, and Niddah
• Re: Making songs out of psukim
• Sechorah with Amaleik (from Areivim was Nazis/PLO)
• Re: Fwd: RAV -10: The Need for Inwardness
• Re: Women, Tefillin, and Niddah
• chelek Elokah mimaal' (piece of G-d above)
• Who can be a dayan?
• Re: Gra and Ba'al Hatanya (was RE: 72 minutes)
• Not All Chassidim Follow RT
• Why Only 72 min....
• Tartei D'Asrei
• tzais Gra vs RT
• Proper care avoiding AZ and shemos AZ
• Re: Derivatives of Avodo Zoro and linguistic kvetchin
• Re: R Weinreb and the views of Poskim re adoption, etc
• Haman
• Re: Haman
• Re: Sechorah with Amaleik

I just searched the archives on this subject and looked at some of
the posts.

Are there any poskim who allow getting into a regular elevator and
getting off at the closest floor that it stops on? What about if a goy
asks which floor to press? Can a Yid tell him?

Thank you for any replies.

(Based on what I read it would seem that this would not be permissible
but I just wanted to ask if there were any poskim who allowed it)

- Noach

At 11:49 AM 2/28/01 -0500, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
>I don't know if htis would be the same issue but isn't theer an issur from 
>getting hanaah from property of amaleik. I know there is discussion over 
>how Esther and Mordechai were able to use Haman's house. (Sechorah could 
>be different but just thought I'd throw it out    there)

IIRC even the issur on the animals as korbonos (this week's haftarah) was 
an horo'as sho'oh.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb 

We queried:

The Ketzos Ha'Choshen 25:12 discusses the halacha that states that if two 
dayanim erred in halacha, while the third, overruled, dayan was actually 
the one who was correct, then when the mistake is eventually brought to 
light, the two mistaken dayanim each pay one-third of the loss that was 
incurred by the litigant they had found guilty. The wronged litigant thus 
loses the one-third of the principle that correspnds to the third dayan.

The Ketzos asks why this halacha differs from the case of an ox ("shor") 
that pushed another ox into a pit ("bor"), and the case of a shor and a man 
("odom") tht damaged in unison. In these cases we see "kee leicah 
l'ishtalumei mei'hai ishtalumei mei'hai" - what one cannot collect from the 
owner ("ba'al") of the shor one collects from the ba'al ha'bor (and vice 
versa), or what one cannot collect from the ba'al ha'shor one collects from 
the odom (and vice versa). So too here, we should say that the last third 
that cannot be collected from the dayan who proved to be correct should be 
collected from the other two dayanim (i.e., one-sixth apiece).

Why not?

Voss Iz Der Chilluk?

What Derech have you used to resolve that Chilluk?

Again, several wonderful responses came through. Some I note below, but 
others were equally wonderful. Yasher ko'ach!

RCPS himself gives one resolution:

By Nezikin, each one caused and completed the Act of Nezek. The  chiyuvim, 
therefore, can be transferred from one cause and completer to the other, 
when necessary. In the case of dayanim, however, it is only the two that 
constituted the Rov that caused and completed the Din.The third dayan did 
nothing, but, rather, was only battel to the other two (via Bittul b'Rov, 
again based on the Grach Stencil BK 27) - they thus constitute the entire 
BD, vis a vis this psak, and therefore there is no chiyuv to be transferred 
to the other two.

This is, LAND, a tough sevoro to follow, and I think we did better than 
RCPS this week!

Let's try paraphrasing my original style:

An Analysis of Darchei HaLimud (Methodologies of Talmud Study) Centering on 
Kee Leicah l'Ishtalumei mei'Hai Ishtalumei mei'Hai

We may pose the following chakira: Is kee leicah l'ishtalumei mei'hai 
ishtalumei mei'hai a transfer of extant obligation (ha'avoras chiyuv)  - in 
which case, in the absence of an extant obligation (the third dayan) there 
is nothing to transfer; or, a means of distributing the sum to be paid 
among possible payers (ofen tashlumin) - in which case, since a nezek *did* 
occur, and there are payers to pay, the shortfall should transfer. That 
dayanim do not pay proves the former, despite the use of the terminology 
"ishtalumei" in the principle. (This is a R' Chaim Telzer recast of RCPS's 
resolution. It is identical to R' Chaim Brown's approach, and also, as he 
noted, essentially morphs into the Brisker approach as well.)

Now, the truth is that in Telshe, there were two derachim, that of Reb 
Chaim Rabinovitz (Reb Chaim Telzer) and that of Reb Yosef Leib Bloch & Reb 
Shimon Shkop. This chakira captures the hallmark of the former (Reb Chaim 
Telzer's) derech - Contingencies - but not the latter, which we'll explore 
later.

Let us now go through how the other various darchei halimud would approach 
this important conundrum:

Brisker Derech: Intrinsic Categorization and Definition - There are two 
(tzvei) dinim in kee leicah l'ishtalumei mei'hai ishtalumei mei'hai: 
Transfer of "Cheftzah" (Challos Chiyuv) and transfer to a "Gavrah" (to a 
Bar Chiyuvah). In Nezikin, you have both, and therefore kee leicah works. 
By Beis Din, you have Gavrahs who are Barei Chiyuvah, but there was no 
Challos Chiyuv to transfer.

Poilisher Derech: Brilliant Novelty (pilpul) - (with credit to R' Gershon 
Dubin): Just as by Eidim we say that nacei riv'ah d'mamonah a'pumah d'chad 
sahada is a problem, so too by dayanim, since transferring the obligation 
to pay for the error would indicate that the din had been muchrah by two 
dayanim, not three, it would wreck the nature of Beis Din as an activity 
(pe'ulah) of three. So, the chiyuv (which, here, of course is a "chiyuv 
shel petur") is frozen in place on the third - pottur - dayan, and cannot 
be transferred.

The Rogatchover's Derech: I liked R' Yitzchok Zirkind's Harkovo approach. 
Let me go back, also, to the tea example, in which I defined this Derech as 
a "Combination of the Two Previous Derachim": In all activities there is 
the Po'el (Mazik/Dayan) the Niph'al (Nezek, Psak Din) and the Peu'lah 
(Damaging/Paskening). While in the categories of  Po'el and Niph'al there 
are similarities between Din and Nezek, in the Pe'ulah they differ: The 
Pe'ulah of both the Mazikim was damaging, but by the Dayanim, the Pe'ulah 
of two was l'chiyuv and of one was l'pettur. The dissimilarity sets the 
third dayan apart - albeit as a part of the BD - and prevents kee leicah 
from taking effect.

Hungarian Derech: Extrinsic Resolution - Shnaim she'danu dineihem din elah 
she'nik'ra''im BD chatzuf. If we transferred the chiyuv we would be making 
the BD a geder of chatzuf, and we cannot make Dayanim into Resha'im! (This 
is my favorite approach!).

Reb Yosef Leib & Reb Shimon's Derech: I like R' Chaim's, and R' Micha's 
slighly more elegant formulation.

Sephardi Derech: Uncomplicated Grasp - The Sephardi would walk away from
the argument that the six Ashkenazim were engaged in over Kee Leicah
l'Ishtalumei mei'Hai Ishtalumei mei'Hai shaking his head in disbelief
about how silly these Ashkenazim were - Dayanim are enforcing din,
perhaps erroneously, not damaging, so an halocho that applies to Mazikin
is irrelevant!

Tomorrow, IY"H, No. 3.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Carl Sherer
> AIUI, if you are going to daven Maariv early in the summer, you 
> should daven Mincha before Plag - otherwise it's a tartei d'sasrei. 
> See the first Rosh in Brachos.

Hakol modim that you are correct that is if you are davening byechidus.
Caveat: Some poskim allow a tarta desasri for tefillah betzibbur EVEN
on a non-Friday night.
R. Joel Stern - who gives the MB shiur at KAJ - has said this many times
besheim R. Schwab that the kehillah (i.e. KAJ) holds that tefillah
betzibbur over-rides the tarta desasrei, while the MB - aiui - would
NOT overridee in the case of tefillah betzibbur.

It is imho very important to understand that some communities place a
higher premium on Tefillah betzibbur than others, and this can impact how
they are noheig re: zmanei tefillah. Illustration: think about daveing
Mincha gedolah vs. Mincha ketana.

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

At 03:24 PM 2/23/01 +0000, Seth Mandel wrote:
>1) mentioning the name of an Avodo Zoro not mentioned in the T'NaKh
>(apparently a d'rabbonon under Ramb Lavin #14, see the end of Hil. AZ
>Chapter 5, where he says no malqos)...

The Maharam Shick assers using the English year because of issur no. 1. I 
do not follow his reasoning so well.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Dear Chevra 

Are there any sources discussing a woman wearing Tefillin specifically
in conjunciton with being a  Niddah?
According to the stories that Rashi's daughters wore Tefillin, how were
they noheig during their Niddah period?

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe 

"Feldman, Mark" wrote:
>>> I guess this is one area (the issue of Shabbos timers being another) where
>>> klal yisrael collectively has chosen not to pasken like Rav Moshe.

> This issur derives from the Mahril, who believes that it denigrates the
> Torah to be recited that way.

I thought it was one of two l'shonoth in Rashi on a gmara in Perek Cheilek
(sorry, I'm away from my books so I can't give an exact citation).

David Riceman

This initially appeared on Areivim, but I figure this is an Avodah topic. 

RYGB wrote:
> Do you have a source for the assertion that the chiyuv mechiyah associated
> with Amalek applies to other enemies - even l'shitas the alleged R'
> Chaim, it would seem only to create a din Milchemes Mitzva? BTW, where
> is there an issur sechorah with Amalek?

I don't know if htis would be the same issue but isn't there an issur
from getting hanaah from property of amaleik. I know there is discussion
over how Esther and Mordechai were able to use Haman's house. (Sechorah
could be different but just thought I'd throw it out there)

I'd like to cite yet another example of there R' Ronnie Ziegler leaves
us with the impression that the majority of RYBS's dialectics boil down
to Adam I vs Adam II -- or very slight variations thereof. I still await
opinions as to whether this is an accurate impression of RYBS's hashkafah.

:                                Rav Soloveitchik describes this as the
: dialectic of "gadlut ha-mochin" and "katnut ha-mochin." Rav Lichtenstein
: has paraphrased the former as: "the depth and force of a powerful mind
: mastering its environment and impacting upon it," and the latter as "the
: simplicity of the child ... the archetype of a helpless humble spirit
: groping towards his Father and finding solace in Him and through Him"

By the time RAL is done, gadlus hamochin becomes Adam I "mastering its
environment", and katnus hamochin is Adam II "groping towards his Father
and finding solace".

On a different topic, RRZ later writes:
: Having posited the need for internal fulfillment of mitzvot, the Rav
: proceeds to fill his writings and discourses with memorable descriptions
: of those experiences....                               What is important
: to note regarding this category is that the feelings are not merely
: "aggadic" or pietistic accessories to a formal halakhic act. Rather,
: the emotions are part of the formal halakhic requirement itself; indeed,
: they are the main component of the mitzva.

: This distinction between outer action and inner fulfillment is a powerful
: tool in solving many halakhic conundrums...

I found a similar meaning in the words of the berachah, "lishmor,
vila'asos, ulkayeim es kol divrei [talmud] torasecha..." Lishmor is a
lashon that applies to lavin, la'asos covers mitzvos asei. What then is
ulkayeim? The kiyum shebeleiv, allowing the mitzvah to make a permanent
(kayam) rosheim on yourself.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On 28 Feb 2001, at 11:20, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
> Are there any sources discussing a woman wearing Tefillin specifically
> in conjunciton with being a  Niddah?

Why would you have a hava amina that they could wear them? 
Tfillin require a guf naki, and at least during the period of 
menstruation a woman by definition does not have a guf naki. Why 
is this any different from the din of looking at the sefer Torah (MB 
88:7) that we discussed earlier in the week? If anything, this should 
be lo kol she'kain.

KNLA"D.

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com>
> Does G-d have a bank account or an inventory in a supply room of
> Neshamos?

The supply room is called "guf"   as in "ad shetichle neshamos
min haguf";  see Rashi there.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> A beis din's ruling is different than an LOR's p'sak. Particularly 
> since the gemara at hand says that only a musmach can do the former, but
> doesn't similarly limit the latter.

Still lost.  

A musmach (the real type) is required for dinei knasos, etc.  The
Gemara says we can paskin hodo'os vehalvo'os because of shlichusayhu
ka'avdinan.  This is a ma'aseh bes din,  AISI,  not a psak.   

A psak of a LOR requires only the heter hora'ah of the mara
de'asra (or his rebbi, or both).

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com>
>Let's face it, both were Litvaks who were immensely influenced by
>Kabbalah and were willing to revise traditional Ashkenazi practice so
>as to conform to the Zohar.

This is quite true.

>I will just point out that they have more in common than just the old
>80-20 rule - it's more like the 98-2 rule. IOW they really concured
>about 98% of the time in face of a lot of standard minhaggim and hashkafa.

As to minhaggim (in general) I think you are correct, but hashkofa's
were MUCH different. The Gra's talmid R. Chaim Voluzner, wrote a sefer
to 'counter' Tanya (As The Solonomer wrote Yesod HaAvodah, to answer
R. Chaim.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
moshe shulman mshulman@NOSPAMix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh       http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus shiur:                  chassidus-subscribe@chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list:        chassidus-subscribe@egroups.com
Outreach Judaism                  http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
ICQ# 52009254    Yahoo/MSN Messaging: mosheshulman

In response to a recent post of R' M. Shulman's, I would like to point
out that not all Chassidim follow RT and this is true both l'kula and
l'chumra.

Vizhnitz and Stolin are the two I can think of off-hand that are mapkid
to daven mincha before sundown and are not machmir for 72 minutes,
even for Motsai Shabbos.

- Noach

Based on the recent posts claiming that the shitos RT for nightfall is
really between 90 and 144 mins. after sundown (in NYC), I would like
to ask why the near universal practice is to consider it a constant
72 minutes.

I would especially like to hear R' Moshe Shulman's reply to this, as
the question is especially relevant to those who hold the shitos RT to
be the actual halacha and not merely a chumra.

Also, I had posted earlier that I have heard from several people that R'
M. Feinstein, z'l, held that in the U.S. the shitos RT is a constant 45
mins. after 'sunset' for the 2nd shkia and 58 mins. for tseis and that
RMF says that it is a _good thing for b'nei Torah to keep 72 mins. Motsai
Shabbos_ but that 58 is sufficient. Has anyone seen this inside and does
anyone know why R' Moshe came to the conclusion that this was a fixed,
constant time frame that did not change according to the time of the year?

Thank you.
- Noach

RCS:
>AIUI, if you are going to daven Maariv early in the summer, you
>should daven Mincha before Plag - otherwise it's a tartei d'sasrei.
>See the first Rosh in Brachos.

Many are maikul about this on Erev Shabbos, perhaps the reason is that
the element of having been mikabel Shabbos shows that it is a dif. day
for you.

The 7:15 Summer Mincha (really starts somewhat later) is after plag in
Emunas Yisroel but maariv, at least shmoneh esrai, usually isn't until
after shkia.

- Noach

It is interesting to note in Shaarim Mtuyanim B'Halacha he brings that
communities in Europe, primarily Hungary and probably including Chasidim,
were divided between straight RT and straight Gra, bein l'kula bein
l'chumra.

Shlomo Goldstein

SM:
> The rod -- appears from the early sources to be the word rod with
> a long o, sometimes spelled rood, meaning cross. So the place name was
> "the village of the cross."...

Mechy Frankel:
> I can see a significant problem threatening jewish continuity, r"l, that
> flows naturally from a proper haqpodoh by AZ-sensitized individuals,
> as we must all strive to be. As we will doubtless be equally m'chuyov
> to excise references to the days of the week and -- come to think of
> it, months -- from our collective vocabularies, it may pose possibly
> insurmountable difficulties in arranging dates for our unmarrieds.

Well said! For those who don't know, Tuesday is tiwes day, Wednesday is
woden's day, Thursday is thor's day and Friday is friga (freya) day. All
named after germanic gods. And avoyseinu haq'doshim v'hat'horim who
spoke Yiddish used similar names as well; I have never heard of anyone,
not even Maharm Schick, who claimed we should say "der zekster tog"
instead of "Freitik."

Halakhically, though, isn't this identical to AZ shebitt'lah 'ovadeha? The
worshippers of AZ gradually morphed the names in the days of the week
(not conscious distortion but linguistic change) so that they were no
longer felt by the 'ovdei AZ to have religious significance. Is this
not similar to taking an AZ and breaking off a nose?

I know R. Gershon, you will be right after me noting that yesh l'halleq.
And you again will be right, I know the hilluq. But I think the conclusion
is still correct, that if they changed the names so that they don't feel
a reference to AZ, then it is muttar for Jews to use the names.

And since we have entered the fishy month, let us note the following. It
came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus that there was a member of the
sanhedrin named Mordokhai, who had a cousin named Hadassa. But she was
called Esther. I would have thought we could do better than that. Why
didn't they use Hebrew names? We all know that you're frum nowadays only
if you use your Hebrew name, at least among Yidden. And yet the Megilla,
written in Hebrew for Jews, uses the goyish name Esther, mentioning her
Hebrew name only once. Why not the other way around: let the megilla
call her Hadassa, and just note at the beginning that she was called by
the goyim Esther? We don't even know M's Hebrew name. Are we saying M
and E were not frum, ch'v?

And even worse, what goyish names! Mordokhai is derived from Marduk, the
chief god of the Assyrian pantheon, and Esther from Astoret, the chief
goddess! We don't need Polish linguistics or magyarul to see this: all you
need are Assyrian (and following them Persian) onomastaca, where these
names are common among the goyim, and their derivation is transparent
and their development well attested (without even any anaptyctic vowels!).

So let us just note that if the names are not felt to be overt references
to AZ (and they surely were not by that time, hundreds of years after
their origin, when people spoke Persian and Aramaic and the Assyrian
pantheon was on its way out, if not gone completely), our own Megilla is
telling us not only that it is muttar to refer to Jews by such names,
but also that the ge'ula may come through such Jewish leaders, despite
their using non-Hebrew names.

Since I'm on the subject, let me run quickly into a phone booth and
change into my outfit with the cape emblazoned, in red letters, CQ
(curmudgeonly quibbler) (ever noticed how it is almost impossible to
find a phone booth to change in any more?):

I will note that Hazal made a great effort to demonstrate that the suffix
in names like G'dalya, Yirm'ya, Y'sha'ya was not qodesh. Every time,
without exception, in the T'NaKh that the name written with a yod and a
he was qodesh, it always has a mappiq in the he, so that it is pronounced
"y-ah" (audible "h" sound). In the several words where it is a mahloqes
of the ba'alei masora whether the word was qodesh or hol, that is also
reflected in the mappiq. E.g. in Shir haShirim shalhevesya (one word)
vs. shalheves y-ah (two words, the second qodesh). But in all of the
names, it is without a mappiq, a clear indication that it is hol.

Similarly in names ending in aleph lamed. Daniel is in Hebrew Daniyyel,
with a double y and the tsere under the yod. The aleph is silent. This is
an unambiguous sign that the name is no longer "dani" plus "qel"; it could
just have easily been written with the tsere under the aleph. Similarly
in Yishma'el the tsere is under the 'ayin, and in Y'hezqel. There is
therefore no reason to avoid writing the full names out in Hebrew; the
custom of writing them with yod and a chupchik was a scribal trick to
shorten their task, like amar lo in the mishna was written by the scribes
amalo. Later it was misinterpreted as a deliberate sign to avoid writing
the name y-ah or qel, and that is erroneous according to Hazal's niqqud.

See also the S'dey Hemed, who wrote a whole piece defending his name
of his book against those who claimed it was osur because it could be
read shin dalet yod, one of the seven Holy Names. He says clearly, and
brings haskomos from most of the g'dolim of his time, that if there was
no kavvono for qodesh and it can be read another way, it is hol.

But chupchiks are a time-honored Jewish custom, as is shown by the
native Hebrew name of the sign (so easy to spell in Hebrew, too, all
you need are a pair of chupchiks). And what are chupchiks for, if not
to make sure that we avoid writing these names out fully? And I do not
like to change Jewish customs when they are very old. However, old to
me means 300-400 years. Old to other people means 50 years (and that is
obviously wrong, because a few of us are older than that, and none of us
are OLD!). Like people telling me about the "old" custom of standing up
when a hoson and kallo march down the isle: less than 25 years old among
Ashkenazim. So I just tell people that there is no reason al pi halokho
to write Y'sha'ayo or Yisroel with chupchiks, and then let them alone,
knowing full well that they will continue to write them with chupchiks
lest they be branded non-frum.

And now I want to disavow this whole letter. It was obviously written
by an epikores, every Jew is taught nowadays that writing Y'sha'ayo or
Yisroel with chupchiks is one of the foundations of the faith, and I
cannot afford to have people thinking that I do not follow the Jewish
principles of faith, especially not with daughters to marry off.

Signed Seth (with a chupchik) Mandel

The day and month names must be mutar, somehow. After all, Anshei Kineses
haGdolah adopted 12 names like "Tamuz" and "Tishri" for our months. How
is Tamuz any more kosher than May?

Even worse, Avichayil gave his daughter Hadassah a civil name after
Ishtarah / Asheirah, and his father named a child after Mardok / Molech!
Could you picture a contemporary frum Jew naming his kid "Christopher"?

So, what was the heter?

-mi

> Can you please expand on this. I thought the Lubavitcher rebbe
> was completely opposed under all conditions to adoption.
R Weinreb contrasted the views of R Bleich and the Rebbe Z"l on the issue of
artificial insemination, not adoption.
                            Steve Brizel
                             Zeliglaw@aol.com

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Micha Berger wrote [to Areivim]:
>          the only Amaleikim we could kill post-Sancheirev are those who
> made a point of preserving their identity. People proud of their
> Amaleiki blood are going to be the Hamans of this world.  And even they
> are gone.

The Yerushalmi Megilla may be construed that Haman was not a born
Amalekite, rather he identified himself as an Amalekite (actually,
Agagite) in order to advertise his views (roughly parallel to Mordechai
*ha'Yehudi*).

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 06:15:27PM -0600, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
: The Yerushalmi Megilla may be construed that Haman was not a born
: Amalekite, rather he identified himself as an Amalekite (actually,
: Agagite) in order to advertise his views (roughly parallel to Mordechai
: *ha'Yehudi*).

I don't get the parallel. Mordechai was a Yehudi -- a survivor of malchus
yehudah. I thought the sheim Yehudi was used because it was /both/ literally
true /and/ represented what Mordechai stood for.

If you really want to parallel, then you'd say that Haman ha'Agagi was an
Agagi who was proud of standing for his ancestral culture.

I'd like a mar'eh makom so that I can see how I'd construe the Y'lmi for
myself.

-mi

> IIRC even the issur on the animals as korbonos (this week's haftarah) was
> an horo'as sho'oh.

The Sifri at the end of P' Ki Tetzei darshens timche as applying even
to Amalek's animals. It is not a specific hora'as sha'ah; it also sounds
like a general din in destroying the property of Amamlek

On that note, in a footnote in his hakdamah the Shut Oneg Y"T writes that
the mitzva of killing the animals applies only after all the people of
Amalek have been killed off. This explains Shaul's bizarre behavior -
he leaves Agag alive but and greets Shmuel brazenly saying he fufilled
the mitzvas Hashem?! Explains the Oneg Y"T, Shaul devised a 'kuntz' that
as long as he left a member of Amalek alive the miztva of killing the
animals did not yet apply so BN"Y could be zocheh in them for korbanos;
once a kinyan was made, it is a beheimas yisrael and the mitzva of killing
it no longer applies. Shaul had mercy on Agag, and temporarily let him
live for this purpose. The lesson of the Navi is the dvar Hashem should
be fufilled k'pshuto without coming up with a kuntz to fufill your own
cheshbonos alongside.

Also, the idea attributed to R' Chaim that there are 2 dinim in mechiyas
amalek 1) regular milchemes miztva as a tzivuy on the tzibbur 2) a mitzva
on each member of klal yisreal to eradicate those people possessing the
traits of amalek can be found in RYBS's essay Kol Dodi Dofek, see Divrei
Hagot v"Ha'aracha footnote p.49

Aside from the obvious nafka minah (that a yachid is metzuveh to kill
Amalek, but by other nations it is a chovas hatzibur to fight a war),
I think yesh lachkor acc. to the Marcheshes who learns that milchama is
zman gerama and there is no chalos milchama at night, can one do battle
with amalek at night - even if there is no milchama, there is still a
chovas hayachid to kill them. Halacha l'ma'aseh is parshas zachor taluy
in the milchama and is zman gerama, or taluy in the chovas hayachid to
kill Amalek, nafka minha for chiyuv nashim (Minchas Chinuch, etc.), and
whether you can be yotzei with the leining in P' Beshalach (MG"A vs. M"B)?

-Chaim B.

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]