ביום ההוא נתן המלך אחשורוש לאסתר המלכה את בית המן ותשם אסתר את מרדכי על בית המן
“On that day, King Achashveirosh gave Queen Esther the house of Haman. Esther placed Mordechai in charge over Haman’s house.” (Esther 8:1-2)
There is a mitzvas aseh [positive commandment] to destroy the memory of Amalek (Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 5:5). Since this was “the estate of Haman,” why did Esther accept it as a gift?
According to halachah the property of people who are put to death by the King automatically becomes the King’s possession (Sanhedrin 48b). Since Achashveirosh personally issued the order that Haman be hung, Haman’s property automatically became his. Consequently, it was permissible for Esther to take it since it was no longer considered the property of an Amalakite. Thus, after King Achashveirosh said to Queen Esther and Mordechai the Jew, “Behold I have given Haman’s estate to Esther,” he also added: “and he has been hanged because he plotted against the Jews” (8:8), to emphasize that it was permitted for her to take it since he was hung by the decree of the King.
This is analogous to what the Gemara in Gittin (38a) says regarding the land of Aman and Moav. The Torah forbade us from distressing or provoking war with Moav or Amon, and thus we cannot directly take their lands (Devorim 2:10,19). However, after they were defeated by Sichon and the land was considered Sichon’s, it was permissible for the Jews to take the land (see R’ Yerucham Perlow’s, Sefer HaMitzvos, Vol. 1, pg. 523).
Alternatively, R’ Chaim Brisker explains as follows: According to Rashi (Devorim 25:19) this commandment includes men and women regardless of age, and even sheep and oxen, “So the name of Amalek shall not be mentioned even in connection with an animal by someone saying, ‘This animal was of Amalek.’” The Rambam (Melochim 5:4) rules that it is a mitzvas aseh to utterly wipe out the seven nations that lived in Eretz Yisroel, as it is written, “You shall utterly destroy them” (20:17) and “You shall not allow any person to live” (20:16), and he concludes, “Ukevar avad zichram” — “Their memory no longer exists” (because Sancheirev inter-mixed all the nations of the world).
The Rambam (5:5) continues: “It is also a mitzvas aseh to destroy the memory of Amalek, as it says, ‘Timcheh es zeicher Amalek mitachas hashamayim’ — ‘You shall wipe out the memory of Amalek from under the heaven’ (Devorim 25:19).”
1) Why doesn’t the Rambam add “Ukevar avad zichram” — “Their memory no longer exists” — as he did regarding the seven nations?
2) Why doesn’t the Rambam mention that there is also a mitzvah to utterly destroy the possessions of Amalek?
The seven nations were those who occupied Eretz Yisroel before the Jewish conquest. Amalek was not one of the seven nations, but he was the arch enemy of the Jewish people. Without any justification, merely out of pure hatred, he fought the Jewish people and sought to annihilate them.
Throughout the millennia there have been “Amalekites” of various kinds, anti-Semites who, regardless of their genealogy, have had an imbedded hatred for the Jewish people and who have seized every opportunity to harm them. The mitzvah of wiping out the memory of Amalek does not only apply to the nation of Amalek, but also to all those who have accepted their vicious obsession with harming the Jews.
Thus, in regard to the seven nations whose existence is no longer known, the Rambam says: “Ukevar avad zichram” — “Their memory no longer exists” — and therefore presently the mitzvah of destroying them is not applicable. He does not add these words in regard to Amalek, since the mitzvah applies not only to the nation of Amalek, but to all those who follow the Amalekite philosophy of harming the Jews.
The difference between dealing with the nation of Amalek and dealing with those who follow the Amalekite philosophy is as follows: Wiping out the memory of Amalek also includes utterly destroying their possessions so that the name of Amalek shall not be mentioned, “Even in connection with an animal, by someone saying, ‘This was of Amalek.’” However, in the case of the non-Amalek nations who follow in their steps, only the vicious people must be destroyed.
According to the Yerushalmi (Yevamos 2:6) Haman was not an actual descendant of Agag the King of Amalek. He was called “Haman the son of Hamedosa the Agagi” to designate him as “kotzeitz ben kotzeitz” — “a murderer and son of a murderer.” Since he followed in the footsteps of Amalek and pursued their philosophy of harming the Jewish people, it was incumbent upon Mordechai to do everything possible to destroy him, but it was permissible to benefit from his possessions afterwards. (R’ Moshe Bogomilsky)
