Esther 9:7, Question 2. Why is the format of this part of Megillas Esther different from the rest?

  • According to the Yosef Lekach, the format of this part of Megillas Esther is different from the rest, with each name on a separate line, to emphasize the prominence of these men.
  • The Talmud (Megillah 16b) writes that these verses are written like the bricks of a building because we do not want them to rise again.
  • This is also in keeping with the custom brought down by the Rema (Orach Chaim 690:15) to read from the last three words (chamesh meios ish) in Esther 9:6 until the first three words (asseres bnei Haman) in Esther 9:10 in one breath.
  • The Maharil explains the custom similarly that Haman’s sons were in command of these 500 men, and they were all killed at once, as though in one breath.
Advertisements

Esther 9:7, Question 1. Why does the verse write the word v’es (“and”) before each son?

ז וְאֵת ׀ פַּרְשַׁנְדָּתָא וְאֵת ׀ דַּלְפוֹן וְאֵת ׀ אַסְפָּתָא

7. And Parshandasa and Dalfon and Aspasa.

Rav Galico writes that the verse uses the word v’es (“and”) for each son because each of them individually was equal to the 500 men mentioned in the last verse (Esther 9:6).

Esther 9:6, Question 2. Why does the verse use the singular word ish to describe the plural dead enemies?

  • The Yosef Lekach writes that the verse uses the word ish to indicate that the dead enemies were important people.
  • Similarly, the Targum explains that all of these 500 were Amalek dignitaries.
  • Rav Eliezer of Garmiza adds that Haman’s sons led the battles, and were therefore killed first.
  • On the other hand, Ma’amar Mordechai writes that his sons were not killed at this point. Rather, they were preserved for later (see Esther 9:7-9).
  • Megillas Sesarim writes that ish in in the singular because, despite their greatness, they were easily mowed down as if they were but one man.
  • The Rema in Machir Yayin writes that they are united in their deaths because they were united in one purpose.

Esther 9:6, Question 1. Why does the verse tell us the death toll only in Shushan, and why does the verse remind us that it is the capital?

ו וּבְשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה הָרְגוּ הַיְּהוּדִים וְאַבֵּד חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת אִישׁ

6. And in Shushan the capital, the Yehudim killed and destroyed five hundred man.

  • The M’nos HaLevi translates habira, not as “the capital,” but as the “palace,” so the verse is intimating, according to R’ Yosef Gakon, how safe the Jews felt in the palace compound to have killed 500 servants of the king in his presence.
  • Similarly, the Ibn Ezra adds that, outside Shushan, the Jews feared the influence of Haman and his sons.
  • Interestingly, the Vilna Gaon notes that the verse uses the word vi’abed (“and destroyed”) because the Jews destroyed the property of their enemies. The reason for this is to assist the Persians in forgetting this event ever took place. Nations in general have poor memories, and the lack of physical reminders can help avoid the anti-Jewish sentiment this massacre could later conjure.

Esther 9:5, Question 3. What does the verse mean stating “they did to their enemies as they wanted?”

  • Considering the Jews’ natural dislike of violence, this verse’s description that “they did to their enemies as they wanted,” seemingly without regard for the rules of engagement, appears strangely out of character.
  • Rav Yechezkiel Levenstein writes that the verse can be read as “they, the Jews, did to their enemies as they – the enemies – wanted,” or that they treated them with respect rather than killed them.
  • In a similar reading, the Alshich and the Vilna Gaon suggest that the verse can be read as “they did to their enemies as they – the enemies – wanted to do to them.”
  • Also, the Yosef Lekach writes that the Jews took the spoils in the small towns because “they, the Jews, did to their enemies as they (the Jews) wanted,” and not as Mordechai wanted.

Esther 9:5, Question 2. Why does the verse mention different methods of killing?

  • According to the Midrash, the Jews killed the enemies inside their houses with the sword, but killed those who were outside with other methods. Those who were hiding needed to be brought out to the battlefield.
  • The Alshich explains that some gentiles openly threatened the Jews, while others harbored hate privately. Each group received a punishment commensurate with their behavior – some were wounded with the sword, some were killed, and yet others were destroyed together with their possessions.
  • The Maharal points out that hitting the enemies with the sword could potentially kill them, and once they are killed, they may need to be buried. But once they are destroyed, the enemies are gone.
  • R’ Moshe Katzenellenbogen writes that, in big cities, Jews could only kill bigger, more obvious enemies. In the smaller cities, the Jews stripped the weaker leaders of their power and humiliated them.
  • The Vilna Gaon explains these three methods were utilized at different stages of the battle. During the first stage, the Jews used swords, then graduated to burning those hiding out of the buildings, and finally arrested the residents.
  • The Ben Ish Chai points out that the rearranged initial letters (not counting the article letter vuv‘s) of makas cherev vi’hereg vi’avdal (“striking of the sword, and killed, and destroyed”) spell out the word emcheh (“I will destroy”). H-Shem (Shemos 17:14) uses this very word in His promise to eradicate Amalek, the nation responsible for this massacre. He also points out that these three expressions parallel Haman’s plan (Esther 3:13) to kill, destroy, and annihilate the Jews. The Jews merited to overcome this triple fate by fasting for three days (Esther 4:16).
  • R’ Dovid Feinstein writes that the destruction in this verse refers to the Jews destroyed the property of their enemies. This was done to demonstrate that their intent was not to conquer the wealth of others. Perhaps this was also intentionally contrary to Achasverosh’s order (Esther 4:11) in order to have the excuse that they could not take the possessions, since they were destroyed.

Esther 9:5, Question 1. Why does the verse use different terms for enemies?

ה וַיַּכּוּ הַיְּהוּדִים בְּכָלאֹיְבֵיהֶם מַכַּתחֶרֶב וְהֶרֶג וְאַבְדָן וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְשׂנְאֵיהֶם כִּרְצוֹנָם

5. And the Yehudim struck all of their enemies striking of the sword, and killed, and destroyed, and they did with their adversaries as they wanted.

  • Like the Vilna Gaon’s answer to a similar question earlier (Esther 9:1), the M’nos HaLevi says that an oyeiv (“enemy”) hates openly and a soneh (“adversary”) hates secretly. The secret enemy is far more dangerous, as it is difficult to predict an attack from a hidden foe.
  • Malbim, however, reverses these definitions, and suggests that the hidden enemies were not killed, but were merely humiliated.