[Avodah] Accepting Amelekites As Converts

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 07:05:08PM -0600, Jay F Shachter wrote:
: Contrary to what the above-cited poster wrote, this is not an
: undisputed halakha, and anyone who claims that it is should at least
: attempt to reconcile it with the plain meaning of 2 Samuel 1:13, which
: the above poster does not do.`

We discussed this before.

But before I go there, the original question appears to be a machloqes
the Rambam and the Chinukh. The Yad, Hil' Melakhim 6 places killing
Amaleiq among milkhamos mitzvah -- a national din. The Chinukh (#604)
makes a chiyuv on every man, woman and child -- on the yachid.

Now back to this issue of accepting their geirim.

>From my post at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n165.shtml#09

RMWeisenberg quoted the Mechilta that we don't accept geirim from Amaleiq,
to which I countered the gemara about Haman's children learning Torah
in Benei Beraq.

As for new ground (for this iteration):
> See also Rambam, Hilkhos Melakhim 6:1-4.

... which means that one should first try to get peace and offer geirei
toshav.

Also Issurei Bi'ah 12:17 about accepting their geirim.

> The Netziv limits that Mekhilta to being during warime.

> OTOH, the Tzitz Eliezer (8:27) notes that the Baal haTurim (Shemos
> 28:7) quotes the gemara as speaking of the descendents of Na'aman, not
> Haman. The TE ends up concluding that the Rambam is speaking of geirei
> toshav, not geirei tzedeq.

In any case, geirei toshav could become talmidei chakhamim in those
dinim that apply to them, so why couldn't it be Haman's?

For that matter, could the descendent of a former Amaleiqite geir toshav
convert even according to those wwho would prohibit the first generation?

Alternatively, perhaps we can find old sources in which Haman isn't an
actual Amaleiqi, that define ha'Agadi otherwise, and thus only bedin
Amaleiq by R' Chaim Brisker's idea that people who try to eterminate us
our concluded -- which wouldn't include children who don't agree. (Unlike
real Amaleiqi which is a born status.)

Targum Sheini (and Josephus Antiquities 11.6.5) take Agagi as a reference
to Agag. But the LXX, in one instance (9:24) translate it to o Makedon
(of Macedon), ie a place name. However, the land of Agag in the modern
theory is next to Madai, and their primary god was probably that of the
Elamites -- Haman. Not the land of Alexander. I still wouldn't surprised
is someone from Chazal ran with an idea in the LXX.

Da'as Miqra discusses this (as did we in vol17).

Y-mi Yevamos 13a (2:6): "Vekhi ben Hamdasa hayah? Ela tzoreir ben
tzoreir of hacha qotzeitz ben qotzeitz." Which argues its not necessarily
discussing physical lineage but listing him as a cultural Agagite.

AND Haman was after Sancheirev, which means there are maamarei chazal
that say there already no known Amaleiqim anymore. Does this mean Berakhos
28a represents a mesorah from the other side of a machloqes?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
micha at aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507