Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 30

Sun, 24 Feb 2013

• 1. parshat zachor (Eli Turkel)
• 2. drunk timing (saul newman)
• 3. Kol HaPoshet Yad (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: drunk timing (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: partnership minyanim (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: How do Chabad deal with the Amen of Krias Shema (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. Changed geographical reference (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Haman and Amaleik (Micha Berger)
• 9. Fwd: BeisDin Errs Who Brings the Chattos? (Meir Rabi)
• 10. Re: Amen of Krias Shema (D&E-H Bannett)
• 11. question on megillah (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: Haman and Amaleik (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Haman and Amaleik (Lisa Liel)
• 14. Re: Haman and Amaleik (Micha Berger)

I was told that many of the girl seminars in Jerusalem read parshat Zachor
last shabbat (Feb 16)
Since erev Purim is shabbat most of the girls will not be in this shabbat
and many wont hear zachor for various reasons so they moved it a week early.

I assume there is no problem with this

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130222/60bd0357/attachment-0001.htm>

seen on a parsha sheet---

 d) unless the law or your health forbids it, become inebriated (drunk) by
drinking wine (davka wine and not other intoxicating substances) (or
alternatively, drink more wine than you would usually on a Sunday
afternoon, then sleep a little during the day.)


----- i still   [even though asking  it every year]    don't  have  a clear
 picture  of the timing .    let's assume  purim ends  630 pm,   and
 assume  most  people  are back from shul  830 am  . let's  assume  people
 make  the seudah   4 pm .

1] are most  people  doing their  drinking  then?  is that enough time to
get  intoxicated  ?      if one  chooses the sleep option ,  do they  start
their  seudah earlier  so as  to  get  knocked out unconscious , yet having
already bentched?

2]  if  the drinking/intoxication is separate from the seudah ,  how do
people time that ----they  quickly give shalach monos    , gave out  $ ,
then put a sign on the door ---  sorry  , tatty  inebriated/asleep?
 someone then
tries to wake him up  to wash before  shkiah?

...i guess this is a mitzva  i  defer to my professional relatives.....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130222/8ff2a869/attachment-0001.htm>

At 10:59 AM 2/22/2013, Rafi Goldmeir wrote on Areivim:

>at risk of shifting this to a discussion appropriate for Avodah, I 
>have read Kol HaPoshet Yad as only applying to Matanot L'Evyonim - 
>you only have to give to everyone who stretches out their hand if 
>they are poor and asking for money as part of matanot l'evyonim - 
>collecting for causes, yeshivas and other organizations,  do not 
>require you to give money on Purim as part of kol haposhet yad - 
>just ggeneral tzedaka.
>Fortunately, just yesterday I asked my rav his opinion on this very 
>matter and he told me that collecting for yeshivas and other causes 
>is not included in kol haposhet yad.

I have a related question, and I mean it seriously.

I have some Chanukah Gelt candy left over from Chanukah.  Will giving 
a package to each collector (and I am sure there will be many)  who 
approaches me in shul on Purim be considered giving tzedaka on Purim?

Must one give money or can one give other things?

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130222/3e7275cd/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 07:37:38AM -0800, saul newman wrote:
: seen on a parsha sheet---
:>  d) unless the law or your health forbids it, become inebriated (drunk) by
:> drinking wine (davka wine and not other intoxicating substances) (or
:> alternatively, drink more wine than you would usually on a Sunday
:> afternoon, then sleep a little during the day.)

...
: 2]  if  the drinking/intoxication is separate from the seudah ...

Implied in the SA is that it IS a din in the se'udah, and not a separate
chiyuv. "Chayav inishe livsumei befurei" is OC 695:2, between s' 1
stating the chiyuv to have the se'udah during the day, and s' 3 which
discusses Al haNisim and AhN when the se'udah runs into the night.

Which would also explain why it's not counted as a 5th mitzvah of the day.

When I personally look at Megillah 7b blank-slate, it really doesn't
look like this chiyuv is the gemara's masqanah. After all, the sugya
continues with a warning AGAINST getting drunk, Rabah killing R' Zeira
after ivsumei. And it's not just me, the Taz on the Rama's "and yeish
omerim that you don't have to get all that drunk" (s"q 2) cites the BY
citing the Ran citing R' Efraim that this masqanah is a proof for these
yeish omerim. "Nidcheh meimra zu."

Relevent to our discussion, Rabah gets this drunk at the se'udah they
have together.

And the next thing in the gemara is the specification that the se'udah
must be during the day -- both said by Rava. Which may reinforce the
linkage, or suggest a different reason for the juxtaposition.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

RCL:

<<purported legal critiques based on certain moral positions may in fact 
require legal responses for the moral reason of protecting the forest.>>

I'm not sure I disagree with you, but agreement is hardly productive 
(and it's no fun), so I'll write as if I do.

Long long ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was in college, one 
of the feminist critiques of orthodoxy ran as follows:

A1. God does not advocate what is unjust.
A2. It is unjust to deny a woman the opportunity to do what she is 
capable of doing.
A3. Orthodox Judaism advocates what is unjust.

Hence many feminists abandoned orthodoxy.

The advocates of partnership minyanim, I think, find themselves in an 
emotional quandary, to wit, they accept axiom 2 but also accept axiom

A0. God advocates that we follow halacha.

RBF, IIUHC, accepts axiom A0 and thinks that, if he can demonstrate that 
partnership minyanim are prohibited, then the impetus to advocate 
partnership minyanim (and axiom A2) will disappear.  You seem to think 
RBF is wrong on the law.  But I think that something else is going on.  
I think the advocates of partnership minyanim are going to come to the 
conclusion:

C4.  Halacha and Orthodox Judaism are not identical.

Now in principle I don't think this is problematical.  American Judaism 
(I don't know anything about the UK) erred when we split into a small 
number of "movements" rather than a huge number of synagogues with 
different tastes.  In this particular case, however, I do think it will 
generate a problem, because there are many places where differences 
between men and women really are deeply embedded in halacha.

I would much rather have the discussion be about axiom A2:

Q2: When is it appropriate to require that people of equal skills be 
treated equally and when is it not?

Notice that while this is a moral question, it is one that has received 
considerable discussion in halachic literature (e.g., can someone who is 
blind lead a seder?).  So that while moral questions may require legal 
responses, "moral" and "legal" are not mutually exclusive categories.  
Surely one can make moral arguments using halachic tools, and I imagine 
that the advocates of partnership minyanim would find those arguments 
more appealing.  And yet neither RCL nor RBF is doing that.

David Riceman

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> They've paskened the shayla to their own satisfaction; they've
> decided that it's not a hefsek after all.  Does that somehow
> make the shayla disappear for the whole world?  They can pasken
> in their shul, but for the rest of the world it's still a
> machlokes and a shayla which one can either confront or avoid.

Can someone clue me in on exactly what the problem is here? I understand
that some (I think it was the MB citing the Gra) say that the bracha before
Shema is a Birkas Hamitzvah, but I have never heard an explanation of WHY
that might be so. In fact, I have four questions, all of which suggest that
it is NOT so.

1) Is it a Birkas Hamitzva when one davens Maariv after Plag Hamincha for
whatever reason? Does *anyone* object to answering Amen to the Chazan under
such circumstances?

2) Is it a Birkas Hamitzva when one davens Shacharis during the fourth hour
for whatever reason? Does *anyone* object to answering Amen to the Chazan
under such circumstances?

3) Is it a hefsek - according to *anyone* - to say "E- Melech Neeman" if one is saying Shma without a minyan for whatever reason?

4) Do we have any other examples where the Matbea Shetib'u Chachamim of a Birkas Hamitzvah does not begin with "Asher Kid'shanu"?

Rather, it seems to me that there simply isn't any Birkas Hamitzvah on
saying Shma. WHY there isn't a Birkas Hamitzva is an interesting question,
but it is not what is being asked right now.

I do concede that Ahavah Rabba CAN BE used as a substitute Birkas Hamitzvah
for the morning's Birkas Hatorah. But that's a b'dieved solution to a real
problem, if one did not say Birkas Hatorah earlier. Given that Ahahav Raba
IS a bracha, and it DOES mention learning, I'm not arguing against those
who say that it can be used for this purpose b'dieved. I'm just trying to
understand those who say that Chazal established a Birkas Hamitzvah for
Mitzvas Krias Shema, and that this bracha is known as Ahava Rabba (and
Ahavas Olam).

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
53/YO Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5127dd5e5c3aa5d5e67d9st01vuc

The gemara (makot 5 a) discusses a case of possible eidim zomimim (reuvain
and shimon) who testify about a murder that took place in sura in the AM
and other witnesses (levi and Yehuda) say that reuvain and shimon were with
them in the PM in Naharda.  When the Rambam brings down this halacha in
hilchot eidut (19:1) he brings down the halacha but uses Yerushalayim and
Lud (note that the Tur keeps sura and neharda).  I'm curious if this is a
pattern in the Rambam or if anyone has seen any explanations.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130223/cccf8596/attachment-0001.htm>

Just got home from shul's Purim party, and now I'm wondering...

All dates below are Seder Olam.

Sancheirev was defeated at Y-m in 3213. His dispersal of Amaleiq had to
be before this.

Purim was in 3404. 191 years later. More so if one questions the
literalness of Chazal's history.

Okay, we could identify beruach haqodesh that Haman was from Amaleiq.
But there was no Amaleiqi culture anymore to have been the cause of his
hatred of Jews.

AMD, if it is possible to pick out Amaleiqim beruach haqodesh, does this
mean that if Eliyahu haNavi were to see a baby that happened to be from
Amaleiq, he would be mechayev to kill her?

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are great, and our foibles are great,
mi...@aishdas.org        and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org   but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

The Halacha is quite clear. RaMBaM Shegagos 13:1; Following a Posek,
following a Beis Din, does not exempt one from bringing a sin offering;
even when it is the Torah, even when it is HKBH who instructs us to follow
the BD, to follow the majority. Those who follow Beis Din's erroneous
ruling, must bring THEIR OWN sin offering.

WRT grievous errors, i.e. if BD completely forgets about a Halacha   the
ordinary people will ALWAYS bring their own Chattos. There can be no excuse
to follow BD in such matters. Hil Shegagos that Reb Micha quotes14:1 --
vehoru la`qor guf migufei Torah; and 14:2, where RaMBaM provides examples -
let's say if BD permit AZ, or to carry mireshus lereshus on Shabbos, or
that bi'ah is mutar with a shomeres yom - following such rulings never
exempts the individuals from bringing their own Chattos. The individuals
must know that this is not correct.

But, if BD permit , throwing meireshus lereshus or moshit, then, provided
all the other conditions are met, BD will bring the Chattos and NOT the
individuals.

What we need to pay attention to are the conditions that must be satisfied
in order that BD brings the Chattos.

For example, If there is one Dayan on the BD who disagrees even though he
is outvoted, BD will NOT bring the Chattos but the individuals.

Which brings us to our discussion re the MaHaRal: How does it make any
sense that even the ordinary people, who are incapable of knowing and
ruling the Halacha, and are expressly instructed to follow the ruling of
the majority, must nevertheless bring a sin offering even though it is BD?s
mistake? This is in essence, Reb Micha?s dismissal of the proper
interpretation of the MaHaRal because he feels it is absurd. It is
precisely for this reason that I brought this Halacha into the discussion.

It is only absurd because our frame of reference is out of balance.

So let us consider, what can we learn, what can we understand and in what
way must we re-calibrate our frame of reference, in order to make some
sense out of the fact that individuals almost always are obligated to bring
the Chattos for BD?s mistake?

It seems that the duty of EVERY INDIVIDUAL to relate to Gd is so great, so
overwhelming and so paramount, that it cannot be waived even where the
individuals are not capable of understanding the Halacha and are nowhere
near being able to Pasken.

And this is the case because the essence of our relationship with HKBH is
engagement, not obedience. If Gd wanted obedience ? then He has it by us
following His instructions and heeding BD even when the BD is making a
mistake.

But Gd does NOT demand or want obedience. Gd wants and demands engagement.
Learn, think, analyse. Learn Talmud ? do not Pasken from the Mishnah and if
you do attempt to cut out the Talmud by Paskening from the Mishnah or worse
from the various abridged Halachic codes, you are a destroyer of the world.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130224/8f49c7c0/attachment-0001.htm>

A number of times we've had repeats on list of the answering 
or not answering Amen after ga'al Yisrael and before kri'at 
sh'ma'.  The custom of not answering amen seems to  have 
arisen after the meaning of the pos'kim who recommended it 
had been forgotten.  They no longer knew that there are, or 
were, two types of Amen. One is a reply of consent that 
cannot be a hefsek. The other is  a sign that of conclusion 
of a section of the prayers that is the hefesek itself.



I copy below a summary on the subject that I wrote on Avodah 
in the past. I hope it explains more than it confuses.





From: "D&E-H Bannett"

<db...@zahav.net.il



I've been more or less following the thread on the custom of 
the chazzan not saying ga'al Yisrael aloud in shacharit so 
as to avoid anyone saying amen. Mention was also made of 
it's somewhat less popular kid brother, not saying 
"ha-bocher b'amo Yisrael b'ahava" and "ohev 'amo Yisrael" 
out loud. The first custom is to be somekh geula to t'fila 
and the second to be somekh ahava to sh'ma'.



It was interesting that some posters insist that answering 
amen is altogether wrong as it is a hefsek while others 
insist that the b'rakhot should definitely be said aloud and 
amen answered - each with sources to back it up. But what 
was most interesting was that what I awaited to see never 
appeared - how and why these two opinions developed. So, 
here is my opinion.



The usual amen indicates acceptance and agreement with the 
brakha, a "me-too" or "count me in". The idea that this is a 
hefsek is very peculiar. When one person makes kiddush for a 
group answering "barukh hu uvarukh sh'mo" is a hefsek 
because this is a custom with no halakhic basis. If 
answering "amen" were a hefsek, those answering would not be 
yotzei yedei chovat kiddush. Has anyone ever heard that, 
when one person makes a brakha to motzi others, they cannot 
answer Amen?



Let's look at something slightly related. The Gemara in 
Bavli Brakhot 45: states two opinions.



1. It is m'shubach to answer amen to one's own b'rakha.



2. It is m'guneh to answer amen to one's own b'rakha.



The contradiction is easily solved. It is m'shubach in bonei 
Yerushalayim (in birkat ha-mazon). It is m'guneh in other 
brakhot.



The importance of one not saying amen to one's own b'rakha 
is shown in the halakhic instruction that when teaching a 
small child to make a b'rakha by having him repeat word 
after word, one should not say Amen when the child finishes 
as this would teach the child to say Amen himself.



But every Ashkenazic Jew does say a self-Amen in Bonei 
Yerushalayim. Obviously, it is not a "me too" type of reply, 
and not a reply at all.



Let the Ashkenazi glance at the siddur of\a Sefaradi friend. 
There is a self Amen after Yishtabach. There is another at 
the end of shemoneh esrei in ha-m'varekh et 'amo Yisrael 
ba-shalom. There is one at the b'rakha melekh m'hulal 
ba-tishbachot at the end of hallel (but not in the same 
b'rakha in barukh she-amar). Another self-Amen appears in 
Ma'ariv in shomer (et) 'amo Yisrael la'ad at the end of 
hashkivenu. Oh, of course, there is also one in Bonei 
Yerushalayim.



All have the same reason.  Bonei Yerushalayim is the end of 
the "official" birkat ha-mazon. Similarly, Yishtabach is the 
end of p'sukei d'zimra; Hamvarekh et 'amo Yisrael is the end 
of shmoneh esrei; mekekh m'hulal ends Hallel, Hashkivenu 
ends "official" ma'ariv. The self-amen is not a reply of 
agreement  to anything. It is a signal that indicates the 
end of a chativa, a single section or group of prayers.



To return, finally, to the original topic, ga'al Yisrael in 
shacharit and ahava before sh'ma', let's look at some 
rishonim who talk about self-amens.







The Rashba, Rosh, Raviah, Or Zarua, Meiri, and others, 
mention self-amen mostly with respect to geula and ahava. 
Obviously, the others were accepted without question, but 
there was another opinion about these two. The Or Zarua 
mentions the Yerushalmi as his source, but I couldn't find 
it, so it is probably no longer there. The Rosh quotes the 
Rambam as saying a self amen only after a section of prayer 
that includes two b'rakhot.





Old siddurim:



Sa'adia Gaon has a self- amen in ahava but none in geula. 
Siddur Ha-g'onim of Shlomo ben Natan has a self-amen in 
geula but none in ahava.



Sa'adia considers ahava the end of the pre-sh'ma' section. 
It has two b'rakhot which is the minimum required by the 
Rambam for a section. Therefore it has a self amen. The 
post-sh'ma' segment has only one b'rakha, and so does not 
have a self amen. In ma'ariv, there are at least two brakhot 
after the sh'ma so the final b'rakha before shmoneh esrei 
has a self amen.



 R' Shlomo ben Natan considers both the pre- and post- sh'ma 
brakhot together with the sh'ma' as a single section and, 
therefore, it has a self amen at ga'al Yisrael. As Ahava is 
in the middle of a section, it doesn't get a self-amen.



Ashkenazim dropped all except the one mentioned in Gemara 
Brakhot. Sefaradim retained all except those that were 
questionable.





Conclusion:



Self-Amens have nothing to do with answering a b'rakha but 
are signs of an ending. Whether the brakhot of geula and 
ahava deserve a self-amen indicating a section end is 
questionable. As the need for such a signal is not that 
important, poskim decided that one should not say a 
self-amen at these two brakhot as it might impair the 
s'mikhat geula litfila or perhaps also ahava li-shma' or the 
separation or the unity of both pre-and post sh'ma' 
b'rakhot. (See Saadia and Shlomo ben Natan above.) Over the 
generations, the concept of an end-signal Amen was forgotten 
and the "not saying amen" was interpreted as applying to the 
"me too" or count me in" type of amen, that of agreement or 
joining to yotzei yedei chova.



Logically, the koach of semikhat geula lit'fila can cancel 
only an amen atzmi but not an amen chova.



All the above is a historical story. It is not a 
recommendation by me to change an established custom, 
neither that of ending ga'al Yisrael silently nor that of 
ending aloud to enable an Amen reply.



BTW, as a ba'al tefila, I still end ga'al Tisrael silently 
as I was taught in my youth many long years ago. But, if I 
hear a chazan's ending of the brakha, I answer Amen.





k"t,



David

We are all familar with the gemara that Mordecai was really Eshther's
husband

1) The megillah stresses that they gathered Betulot
2) It seems inconceivable that the king would start taking wives from
husbands - would led to a revolt
3) The search was in all 127 provinces - must have been millions of
eligible women

If so why was Esther in the competition?

Second chazal and later meforshim describe the central event of acheshveosh
as the rebiluding of the Temple. eg in a conversation with a woman of
unknown background Achashverosh is willing to give anything except for
rebulding the bet Hamikdash. Why would this even come up.
Also many other comments are reinterpretd to be about the bet hamikdash.

We now know that when Cyrus allowed the rebulding of the Temple it was a
general decree to many countries and was not a specific decree to the Jews.
The Persian kings fought many enemies including Greeks, Eygptians etc.  It
would seem strange that the center of theor attention is the small country
of Judea

Purim Sameach

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130224/5c23c0c1/attachment-0001.htm>

On 23/02/2013 11:49 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> Sancheirev was defeated at Y-m in 3213. His dispersal of Amaleiq had to
> be before this.
> Purim was in 3404. 191 years later. More so if one questions the
> literalness of Chazal's history.
> Okay, we could identify beruach haqodesh that Haman was from Amaleiq.

Why are you so sure we need ruach hakodesh?  His father and he might well
have identified as Agagim.  After all, 250 years after the Cajuns were
exiled from Acadia, they are still an identifiable people.


> AMD, if it is possible to pick out Amaleiqim beruach haqodesh, does this
> mean that if Eliyahu haNavi were to see a baby that happened to be from
> Amaleiq, he would be mechayev to kill her?

IMHO, the chiyuv is to wipe out the memory of Amalek, and that has already
been done.  There is no identifiable Amalek any more.  I don't think the
fact (if it is one) that there are physical descendants still alive matters.
There's no such nation any more; nobody remembers them except, ironically,
from the Torah.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 2/23/2013 10:49 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Sancheirev was defeated at Y-m in 3213. His dispersal of Amaleiq had to
> be before this.
>
> Purim was in 3404. 191 years later. More so if one questions the
> literalness of Chazal's history.
>
> Okay, we could identify beruach haqodesh that Haman was from Amaleiq.
> But there was no Amaleiqi culture anymore to have been the cause of his
> hatred of Jews.
>    

That, I'm not sure about.  The Septuagint actually calls him a Magi, 
rather than an Amaleki.  Which, given the power of the amgushim (the 
Persian fire priests) suggests that he was known at the time as a Magi, 
and that it was through ruach hakodesh that we knew he was an Amaleki.  
An Agagi, to be specific.

The fire priests, who started out as worshippers of Mithra and Anahita 
and later brought their worship into Zoroastrianism (which had started 
out monotheistic) might have been descendants of Amalek.  Either 
biologically or ideologically or both.  Just because Sancheriv (really 
his predecessors and successors) mixed up the nations doesn't mean that 
a family/tribe of Amalekites didn't stay in a cohesive group.

> AMD, if it is possible to pick out Amaleiqim beruach haqodesh, does this
> mean that if Eliyahu haNavi were to see a baby that happened to be from
> Amaleiq, he would be mechayev to kill her?
>    

Teiku.

Lisa

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:00:39AM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> Okay, we could identify beruach haqodesh that Haman was from Amaleiq.
>> But there was no Amaleiqi culture anymore to have been the cause of his
>> hatred of Jews.

> That, I'm not sure about.  The Septuagint actually calls him a Magi,  
> rather than an Amaleki...

There is that theory that it refers to him being from Agag, east of
Ashur. But I think it was found the cuneform actually calls the country
Agaz, not Agag.

...
> The fire priests, who started out as worshippers of Mithra and Anahita  
> and later brought their worship into Zoroastrianism (which had started  
> out monotheistic) might have been descendants of Amalek...

Zoroastranism was focused on the two demiurges by Koreish's day. Which
is why Hashem tells him (Yeshaiah 47:1) that He (v. 7) is "yotzeir or
uVorei choshekh, oseh shalom uvorei ra" -- that light and darkness,
good and bad all come from one Source.

In any case, it would be a far distance from Chazal's story if Haman
was a monotheist. I am not sure how to explain the permissability and
laidability of Mordechai's refusal to bow.

> biologically or ideologically or both....

It would have to be at least ideologically. The source for Haman haAmaleiqi
is Bamidbar Rabah 14:1
<http://www.gocomics.com/comic/explore/1635773/0>.
And is mentioned in the piut we said after megillah reading last night.

Back in Mar 2001 <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n142.shtml#03>
RYGB wrote that Y-mi Yevamos 13a implies as much. "Vekhi ben haMdasa
hayah? Ela tzoreir ben tzoreir".

>> AMD, if it is possible to pick out Amaleiqim beruach haqodesh, does this
>> mean that if Eliyahu haNavi were to see a baby that happened to be from
>> Amaleiq, he would be mechayev to kill her?

> Teiku.

LOL.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 30
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)