A commandment for generations

Chen Chen
Could the Rambam have clarified things by reciting the Shema or the aforementioned circumcision?
Of course not. They still practice it in every generation for those who have not yet recited the Shema, as well as those who have not yet been circumcised. And it is not like a mitzvah that cannot be fulfilled for future generations.

Exactly. That's why he brings up Amalek, where it's most pointed. He's the one I wrote. The word and the Q are just my examples of the principle that reaching the goal is not the end of the application.

Rabbi Kethar Shlit'a did not answer my question. The examples of Mila and K'sh are not correct. Because they did not reach their purpose at all until the end of all generations. With other people, in Mila, and in K'sh, every day the obligation on a person is renewed.
M'm I accepted his words that indeed the Rambam does not intend to bring evidence but only to clarify things. But even in clarifying things, the thing from which he clarifies the matter must be as simple as a matter of knowledge even to the opinion of the seven nations, according to the method of the Rabbis at the time of the people who did not count it as a mitzvah for a reason that is not for generations as the Rambam understood in his opinion. If so, apparently in Amalek it is also simple for the Rabbis and therefore Shafir proved from there against him.

And it is interesting to the matter in the same matter. I want to know how Rabbi Kethar understands the intention of the Rambam who writes there. Several times, but he is always concerned with whether this will be possible or if the possibility will be found, etc. Is his intention also for the situation after the commandment has reached its end and purpose, such as for the future when the Holy One, blessed be He, will finish with the Amalekites. Although there is no such reality, since He has already finished with them all, or is he referring to the time before that? And this changes the entire understanding of the words of the Rambam, and I am still doubtful about his intention.
And another point. I saw in his essay on the roots that he mentioned. And he was pleased with the wonderful information of the son of the Rambam's reply to Rabbi Daniel. And there our Rabbi Avraham also writes regarding seven peoples after their memory has been lost, that if he finds one of them, he must kill him. And this is surprising to me, since many have already explained the words of the Rambam, who wrote that their memory has already been lost only regarding seven peoples and not regarding Amalek, which proves that the commandment regarding seven peoples is in the loss of the name of the people. And again, after that, there is no place for the commandment. And even if one of them is found, there is no mitzvah because the mitzvah is not against individuals but against the people and the nation, unlike Amalek, and if so, how does he write that there is an obligation to kill him in the Torah of an individual? And after all, the Rambam himself did not write so strongly that if one of them came to him and he did not kill him, he nullified the mitzvah, as the Hichun wrote, and he was scolded for it.
We would be happy to hear his lofty opinion on this complicated matter.

My Torah esteemed friend, I don't understand your argument. I have already written that circumcision and circumcision are examples of the idea that when you complete the mitzvah, it does not mean that it is temporary. In particular, circumcision, which in relation to a specific person ends with a single act (unlike circumcision). But I think we have exhausted this gibberish. The idea is clear.
As I explained in the article in Shoshim, in my opinion, the Maimonides' intention is also for the future when the mitzvah will reach its purpose. He writes to the Hadiya that even if we exterminated all the Amalekites (unlike today, when they only disappeared) it is still a mitzvah that applies to generations.
My high opinion on the matter is that R’ Avraham probably understood that even among the seven nations, this is a mitzvah for every individual. The fact that many have explained otherwise does not oblige him. But this is really a marginal point, since he is talking about the principle. Let's assume that it is a mitzvah to kill every individual, then even when their memory disappears, it does not mean that the mitzvah is null and void. If one of them is found, the mitzvah will return. Alternatively, if a community of Yevus is found, the mitzvah will exist for them. This is an illustration of the underlying idea, regardless of the halachic details.
Forgive the irony regarding the titles. I don't like them.

Thank you for answering him, you are strong.