eradicating Amalek -- chovas ha'yachid vs chovas ha'tzibur

This is more meaningful than anything I have to say about parshas zachor:

I originally had the idea for this post early in the week, but the more I thought about the topic the more questions I had.  Now I've reached the point where I think I've managed to at least partially put Humpty Dumpty back together again, but you can be the judge of that.  

R' Bachyei (last pasuk in Beshalach) that the property of Amalek is assur b'hanaah:

וע״ד הפשט כי יד על כס יה יאמר כי הש״י משביע לכל מלך ישראל שישב על כסא מלכות שיעשה מלחמה לה׳ בעמלק, באר כי המלחמה והשלל הכל יהיה אסור בהנאה ויהיה הכל לה׳ לא לבני אדם ומפני זה בא העונש לשאול ומדורו של שאול עד דורו של מרדכי וידע מרדכי כי שאול זקנו נענש בעונש גדול והיה עונשו מדה כנגד מדה כי תלה הכתוב שלמות הכסא בנקמת עמלק והוא לא נזהר בנקמתו ועל כן נענש שאבד השם והכסא כי לא נשאר לו שם אחריו אלא נהרג הוא ויהונתן בנו עמו ונפל כסא מלכותו, ומפני זה נזהר מרדכי בדבר שלא ליהנות משלל המן שהיה מזרע עמלק כענין שכתוב בפורענות המן (אסתר ט׳:י׳) ובבזה לא שלחו את ידם, לפי שהתורה הזהירה בכך (דברים כ״ה:י״ט) תמחה את זכר עמלק, וכן מצינו לעתיד המלחמה והשלל הכל לה׳ שנאמר (מיכה ד׳:י״ג) והחרמתי לה׳ בצעם וחילם לאדון כל הארץ.

The problem is that we read in the Megillah (8:1)  בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא נָתַ֞ן הַמֶּ֤לֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ֙ לְאֶסְתֵּ֣ר הַמַּלְכָּ֔ה אֶת־בֵּ֥ית הָמָ֖ן, that Achashveirosh turned over Haman's estate to Esther.  How could Esther have accepted a gift of issuei hanaah?

R' Chaim Kanievsky in Taama d'Kra suggests that the din of issurei hanaah applies only in a situation of war against Amalek, where preserving the property of Amalek preserves the zecher of Amalek.  Haman, however, was killed by Achashveirosh, not in battle.  The property of someone killed by royal edict belongs to the king (I'm not sure why R' Chaim quotes this din which lichorah applies to a melech yisrael).  It was not Haman's property that became Esther's gift, but rather Achashveirosh's.   

He adds that this is why the pasuk says בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא.  It was davka property taken on that day, when Achashveirosh was meting out justice, that Esther took possession of.  Once the full blown war against the hundreds and thousands of other Amalkites in the kingdom started on the next day, nothing else could be taken.  

This answer follows the same basic outline of the Oneg Y"T's explanation of why Shaul thought it was OK to keep the livestock of Amalek.  Shaul thought that so long as the animals were made hefker before the battle the issur hanaah no longer applied to them -- they are not the property of Amalek at the time of war.  The common theme of both answers is that technically, the property in question no longer belonged to Amalek at the time possession was taken by a Jew.

There is a more fundamental chiluk that emerges from a chiddush of the Meshech Chochma, and this is where the picture began to get muddled for me.

The Sefer haChinuch in mitzvah 604 writes that the mitzvah of destroying Amalek does not only apply to the tzibur fighting a battle, but applies to any yachid who chances upon an Amaleiki:

וְזֹאת מִן הַמִּצְוֹת הַמּוּטָלוֹת עַל הַצִּבּוּר כֻּלָּן, וּכְעִנְיָן שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (סנהדרין כ, ב), שָׁלֹשׁ מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּשְׁעַת כְּנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ, לְמַנּוֹת לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ, וְלִבְנוֹת לָהֶם בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה, וּלְהַכְרִית זֶרַע עֲמָלֵק. וּבֶאֱמֶת כִּי גַּם עַל כָּל יָחִיד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הַזְּכָרִים מוּטָל הַחִיּוּב לְהָרְגָם וּלְאַבְּדָם מִן הָעוֹלָם, אִם יֵשׁ כֹּחַ בְּיָדָם בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן, אִם יִמָּצֵא אֶחָד מִכָּל זַרְעָם. וְהָעוֹבֵר עַל זֶה וּבָא לְיָדוֹ אֶחָד מִזֶּרַע עֲמָלֵק וְיֵשׁ סִפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לְהָרְגוֹ וְלֹא הֲרָגוֹ, בִּטֵּל עֲשֵׂה זֶה.

Rav Yaakov Ilan in his sefer Masa Yad (vol 1) suggests that the dual nature of the chiyuv is reflected in the two different parshiyos  that speak about destroying Amalek.  The parsha at the end of Beshalach speaks about  מִלְחָמָ֥ה לַה׳ בַּֽעֲמָלֵ֑ק; the parshas in Ki Teitzei speaks about תִּמְחֶה֙ אֶת־זֵ֣כֶר עֲמָלֵ֔ק, but no mention of war.  The chiyuv to wage war is incumbent on the tzibur; the chiyuv to destroy any zeicher of Amalek is incumbent upon every individual. (I'm not sure based on this why Rashi quotes the din at the end of Ki Teitzei and not in Beshalach.)

Based on this distinction, the Meshech Chochma suggests that the mitzvah of obliterating the property of Amalek, inclusive of the livestock, applies only to the tzibur, but not to the chovas ha'yachid of eliminating Amalek:

 בספר החנוך כתב דעל כל יחיד שיקרה לפניו מזרע עמלק מצוה זו. ולרש״י שפירש זכר מאיש כו׳ משור ועד שה שלא יאמרו גמל זה של עמלק, והוא מהמכילתא דפרשה בשלח, ועיין הגהת הגר״א כאן בספרי מוכח דעל יחיד אין המצוה דהרי מפורש בשמואל א׳ כ״ז ויעל דוד ואנשיו כו׳ והעמלקי כו׳ ולקח צאן ובקר כו׳ הרי דביחיד אין מצוה לאבד הצאן ובקר. והא דאמרו במכילתא שהרג גר עמלקי שאין מקבלין גרים מעמלק, היינו לכן הרגו בהודאת עצמו כמו בן נח שנהרג עפ״י עצמו. וברור.

M'meila, since Haman was killed outside the context of war, his property was not assur b'hanaah.   

Sounds like a nice chiluk, but I was bothered by how the Chinuch makes sense l'shitaso. The Chinuch famously exempts women from the mitzvah of zechiras Amalek because he connects it to the mitzvah of mechi'as Amalek, and he holds that women are exempt from mechi'as Amalek because they do not have to participate in battle.  Putting aside the fact that when it comes to a milchemes mitzvah Chazal tell us that even "kallah mi'chupasa" has to go out to war (see Marcheshesh 1:22 who tries to explain the Chinuch), there is an additional chiyuv here that applies to the individual, not to a communal battle.  As the Chinuch writes,  גַּם עַל כָּל יָחִיד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הַזְּכָרִים מוּטָל הַחִיּוּב לְהָרְגָם וּלְאַבְּדָם מִן הָעוֹלָם. If you see an Amaleiki walking down the street, you take care of him.  Why are women exempt from this mitzvah? And why should the mitzvah of remembering Amalek be connected only to the communal obligation to wage war and not to the obligation on the individual to rid the world of Amalek?  

In order to put Humpty Dumpty back together I think we need to backtrack a bit, and here I found help in R' Gershuni's Mishpat haMelucha.  There are not 2 chiyuvim, a chovas ha'tzibur and a chovas ha'yachid, when it comes to eradicating Amalek.  There is one chiyuv of milchama, and that chiyuv is ongoing -- milchama ba'Amalek m'dor dor.  Sometimes that chiyuv is fulfilled on the battlefield.  Sometimes that chiyuv is fulfilled when you see an Amaleiki soldier walking down the street.  It's the same chiyuv that stems from fighting the war, just in this case you are attacking isolated soldiers.  

The chiluk of the Meshech Chochma as to when Amalek's property is off limits vs when it is not does not depend on the chiyuv being fulfilled, yachid v tzibur, as the same chiyuv milchama is being fulfilled by the individual killing an Amaleiki or by the tzibur fighting a battle.  What it depends on is the nature of the kiyum b'poel of the mitzvah.  For whatever reason, when Amalek is dealt with in the context of battle by the tzibur, his property is off-limits.  When Amalek is dealt with on an individual level, the property can be seized.  What the reasoning for this distinction might be still eludes me.

Either way, maybe with this background we can explains Shaul's mistake and Shmuel's criticism of him.  Shaul did not want the mantle of kingship; he therefore treated the command to fight Amalek not as a national battle incumbent onthe tzibur, but merely as a fight of individuals.  When individuals strike at Amalek, their property is permitted to be seized. 

Shmuel make clear that this was a tragic error. וַיֹּ֣אמֶר שְׁמוּאֵ֔ל הֲל֗וֹא אִם־קָטֹ֚ן אַתָּה֙ בְּעֵינֶ֔יךָ רֹ֛אשׁ שִׁבְטֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אָ֑תָּה  One cannot shirk leadership when called upon to serve the Jewish people.  One must act in a way that reflects the greatness of the Jewish people, and help fulfill our national mandate.