1) Sherlock Holmes had his three pipe problems. Apparently zachor is a four kugel problem:
קיים מנהג לאכול בשבת זכור ארבעה סוגים של קוגל, בהתאם לראשי התיבות- "עמלק":
עפל (ביידיש: תפוחי עץ) מעהל (ביידיש: קמח) לוקשן (ביידיש: אטריות) קרטופל (ביידיש: תפוחי אדמה).
ובכך לקיים את מצוות זכירת מעשי עמלק, או מחיית זכר עמלק על ידי אכילת הקוגלים.
My son and I were both wondering where this "minhag" came from. If you have any info other than what is on the otzar hachochma forum, pls pass it on.
2) The Chazon Ish brought proof that women are exempt from hearing parshas zachor from the Rosh (Brachos 7:2) that learns the gemara there to mean that R' Eliezer freed his eved to make a minyan for zachor. An eved has the same chiyuv as women. If women are obligated in zachor, the eved should have been chayav even without being freed. R' Chaim Kanievsky countered that even if the eved is chayav, he might not count to make up the minyan. For example, Rama holds that the bracha of "ha'rav es riveinu" can only be said with a minyan. Women have a chiyuv to hear megillah, but MB in 690:63 the M"B has a safeik whether they can count for the minyan for purposes of the bracha.
3) There is no bracha on the mitzvah of tzedaka because the recipient may not accept the gift, in which case the mitzvah is not fulfilled (Shu"T haRashba). That same concern does not come into play with respect to mishloah manos according to Rama's view that even if the recipient is mochel and does not accept the gift, one is yotzei. So why no bracha? Seridei Eish offers a number of sevaros, among them that mishloach manos is really a mitzvah tmidis. The point of giving gifts is to engender friendship and comradery. That is not something you should strive for just once a year -- it's something you should aim for every day. Chazal just formalized a once a year practice to cause us to remember and reflect on what we should be doing every day. According to Ohr Zarua there is never a bracha on a mitzvah tmidis, and so there is no bracha on m"m.
The same sevara explains why there is no bracha on parshas zachor (a topic we've discussed before). "Zachor" is a mitzvah tmidis -- every day we should remember what Amalek did. Tos (Brachos 4) quotes one view that when we say "y'hei shemei rabbah" there is a period after the word "rabbah." The Torah tells us that Hashem's name is incomplete so long as Amalek exists. What we are saying is that "yhei shemei," the name of Hashem, "rabbah," should be great=complete again. We should remember and eliminate Amalek. Chazal created a formal once yearly reminder of what we should be doing every day.
4) וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו שְׁמוּאֵל קָרַע ה׳ אֶת מַמְלְכוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ הַיּוֹם וּנְתָנָהּ לְרֵעֲךָ הַטּוֹב מִמֶּךָּ
וְגַם נֵצַח יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יְשַׁקֵּר וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם כִּי לֹא אָדָם הוּא לְהִנָּחֵם
Malbi"M explains:
אומר אל תדמה כי היעוד האלהי דומה כיעוד בני אדם, שלפעמים הוא שקר תיכף שמגזם בפיו להרע ובלבבו לא כן ידמה, ופעמים הגם שחושב כן לעשות יתנחם אחר כך ולא יעשה
What could the possible hava amina be to say otherwise?
Radak explains that the pasuk וְגַם נֵצַח יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יְשַׁקֵּר וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם is not speaking about Shaul, but rather about David. B'shlama Shaul, there was never any guarantee from G-d that he would reign forever. The malchus was contingent on his serving Hashem properly. However, the promise of malcus to David is eternal. Even though it was taken from Shaul, it would be David's forever.
Rashi and others, however, read the pasuk as speaking about Shaul, and so hadra kushya l'duchta. The Meshech Chochma quotes a Turei Even to answer this question. The gemara (R"H 17) writes that once a gzar din is issued, it cannot be retracted. The only exception is with respect to a tzibur. Turei Even asks: but the gemara in R"H writes that even after Yeshayahu haNavi told Chizkiyahu (Yesh 38) that there is a gzar din that he is going to die, Chizkiyahu didn't give up hope and was able to change the gzar din through tefilah? From here we see, says the Turei Even, that a melech is not treated like a yachid. A melech represents the nation, and therefore has the din of a tzibur. Shaul therefore might have thought that in his case too, he is the king, he is like a tzibur, and so gzar din or no gzar din, he can beg Hashem for forgiveness.
Why did it work for Chizkiyahu and not for Shaul?
The Meshech Chochma every few parshiyos brings up a yesod from the Rambam in Peirush HaMishnayos to explain some difficulty. I've quoted two places where he says it here. The Rambam says that when a navi is shown a vision of something positive that is supposed to happen, there is no guarantee that it will take place. It is a possible outcome, but not a guaranteed outcome. That vision may be contingent on people's behavior, on circumstances, on other factors. However, if the navi is told to prophesize and tell people what is going to take place, you can take it to the bank. No matter if the circumstances change, the outcome is guaranteed. The Torah says you can test a navi. If a navi makes a promise that doesn't come true, you know he is a navi sheker. If there was no guarantee of fulfillment, the test wouldn't work. The Meshech Chochma (this is one of his 2 answers) uses that same yesod here. קָרַע ה׳ אֶת מַמְלְכוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ הַיּוֹם וּנְתָנָהּ לְרֵעֲךָ הַטּוֹב מִמֶּךָּ. Hashem didn't just take the malchus away from Shaul -- Hashem promised it to David. A prophecy for good cannot be retracted.
5) The Shu"t Oneg Y"T in his intro explains that when Shaul said to Shmuel בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה לַה׳ הֲקִימֹתִי אֶת דְּבַר ה׳ he was not crazy. There was a technical halachic justification for what he did (I discussed it in this post). The lesson of the haftara is that G-d does not want technical obedience. What he wants is for us to fulfill his ratzon. The Mahari"L Diskin offers his own variation on that same theme. Shaul did not just start coming up with rationalizations to spare Amalek out of the blue. The gemara in Makkos (7a) has a din
דתניא רבי יהודה בן דוסתאי אומר משום רבי שמעון בן שטח ברח מארץ לחוצה לארץ אין סותרין את דינו מחוצה לארץ לארץ סותרין את דינו מפני זכותה של ארץ ישראל.
Rashi explains: מפני זכותה של ארץ ישראל. אולי תועיל למצוא לו פתח של זכות. Shaul held that it is kibush ha'aretz by the king and nation that establishes kedushas ha'aretz. Therefore, the din on Amalek that was true before he waged war on them. Once he conquered their land, all bets were off. Even for an aku"m, even for Amalek, the zechus of Eretz Yisrael can perhaps help, and therefore he wanted to review whether killing was justified. The punchline remains the same: technically, Shaul's argument might have merit, but it nonetheless circumvented the ratzon Hashem.
The point I want to make from this MahariL Diskin is that kal v'chomer hu! if Shaul thought the zechus of Eretz Yisrael might even help Amalek, surely the zechus of Eretz Yisrael should stand in our favor. May we be zocheh to finally blot out Amalek and bring the shem HavayaH to completion.
