Esther 4:12, Question 1. Why does the verse use the plural “vayagidu” instead of the singular “vayaged?”

יב וַיַּגִּידוּ לְמָרְדֳּכָי אֵת דִּבְרֵי אֶסְתֵּר

12. And they elaborated to Mordechai the words of Esther.

  • The simplest explanation as to why the verse uses the plural “vayagidu” (“and they elaborated”) instead of the singular “vayaged” (“and he elaborated”) comes from the Malbim. He writes that Hasach simply had other messengers with whom he worked, and they are the ones who delivered this message.
  • The Talmud (Megillah 15a) understands that Hasach avoided delivering this message personally because he was reluctant to deliver a negative message – in this case, a message negating Mordechai’s order. This is because of the ethical principle that, as much as possible, we try not to deliver bad news.
  • The Maharal writes that Hasach did not want to go back alone in order to avoid arousing suspicion.
  • The Targum writes, “Haman the wicked saw Hasach, also named Daniel, going in and out of Esther’s room. He went and he killed him. The message was delivered from Esther through Michael and Gavriel.” In this version, Haman seems suspicious of Esther’s close relationship with a Jew. Yalkut Shimoni and Talmud Yerushalmi say similarly.
  • R’ Moshe Dovid Valle writes that Haman realized that Hasach was speaking to Mordechai in code. The code to which he is referring is the deeper levels of the last few verses.
  • R’ Mendel Weinbach points out that we sometimes have to deliver bad news, but only if it will practically change something. Pointless bad news need not be delivered. When Rav Elyashiv was ill and his daughter, Rebbetzin Kanievsky, passed away, the current halachic authorities advised that he not be told of her passing. He was not in condition to sit shiva, and the news might have actually affected his erstwhile frail health.
  • The Ginzei HaMelech wonders why, if this is indeed a negative message, did Hasach not reprove Esther? After all, there is a halacha (Rambam, Mishnah Torah, Hilchos Deyos 6:7) which says a person has the responsibility to correct those who are in the wrong. The reason is that Esther was not necessarily in the wrong. She had a legitimate halachic opinion, as follows: The Pischei Teshuva (Yoreh Deah, 252:2) writes that one is forbidden to risk one’s own life for the life of another. Therefore, Esther had a legitimate reason to avoid risking her life. However, had Esther not maintained a halachic basis for her rejection of Mordechai’s order to visit the king, Hasach would, indeed, have had reason to be reluctant in reporting this to Mordechai, based on the Talmudic dictum that we avoid sending negative messages.
  • Rav Shimon Schwab asks why this is the first time Hasach felt this reticence. After all, had not this entire conversation of the last few verses (Esther 4:7-12) been negative? Rav Schwab answers that, actually, even the threatened extermination of the Jewish people is not bad news as long as they have the opportunity to do teshuva! However, the fact that Esther refuses to sacrifice for the sake of her people is negative, and this is the information Hasach does not want to deliver to Mordechai.
  • Rav Henach Leibowitz quotes the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 10b) where Rav Chanina ben Chama brought the Roman Caesar Antoninus’s slave back to life to avoid having to tell him that his slave had died. Rav Leibowitz writes that this shows the extent to which we are expected to avoid delivering bad news. This is despite the fact that this idea is not explicit in the Torah, but is only implicit in the behavior of Hasach. He concludes that so, too, must we be careful to accustom ourselves to the behavioral and ethical lessons of the Torah.
  • R’ Eliezer Schwartz, the rabbi of Ohev Tzedek, brings from Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik that part of the conflict between Esther and Mordechai is the oft-repeated conflict between women and men in TaNaCh. For example, he says that women and men acted differently with regard to the Golden Calf is that women see a wider view of a given situation. This is the reason for the Kli Yakar’s comment (on Bamidbar 13:2) that when H-Shem criticizes Moshe for “the men he sent,” He is implying that He would have preferred that women be sent to spy out the land of Canaan. Female spies would have seen the situation differently, and would have come up with the correct, positive interpretation of the events they witnessed. Similarly, women like Sarah in regard to Yishmael, Rivkah with Eisav, and numerous other examples show that women can see the long-range big picture, whereas men are limited to a short-term view of a situation. Here, Esther sees this situation as one that needs time to plan. Mordechai, however, seeks immediate action.
Advertisements

Esther 4:11, Question 5. Why does Esther emphasize that she had not been summoned for thirty days?

  • Megillas Sesarim says Esther was arguing here that her not being summoned in the last thirty days was indicative of the fact that she soon would have to be requested.
  • R’ Yaakov of Dubno gives the opposite answer – since Achashverosh had not called her in thirty days, Esther feared that he had lost interest in her.
  • Kisei Shlomo writes that Esther realized that the Jews’ salvation would really not come from her, but through their own teshuvah. She therefore picked the large number of days to buy time for the Jews to repent on their own.
  • The Maharal quotes from the Talmud (Brachos 58b) that a person who is reunited with a friend after thirty days says the blessing of Shechechiyanu. The Maharal explains that the reason for this is the intense joy brought about by the cessation of the absence. In other words, Esther emphasized that she had not been summoned for thirty days to clarify that when Achashverosh will actually summon her after so long a separation, his emotional state will be far more amenable to her suggestions.
  • According to Rav Yitzchak Hutner, this entire conversation justifies the custom of drinking on Purim ad d’lo yada, up to the point that one does not know the distinction between “blessed is Mordechai” and “cursed in Haman” (Talmud, Megillah 7b). He explains that, during the rest of the year, we are warned against digging deep into the secrets of the world, like the material from which the Earth was made, the symbolic meaning of Yechezkiel’s vision of H-Shem’s chariot and retinue, etc. On Purim, however, the point of drinking is to break down our inhibitions, open our minds, and reach levels of intellectual understanding to which we are not usually privy. On Purim, too, we are able to enter the courtyard of the King, and He will allow us to comprehend that which we were otherwise not invited to understand.

Esther 4:11, Question 4. Why does the verse describe the king’s scepter?

  • The Maharal writes that gold represents H-Shem’s Characteristic of judgment. It therefore also represents the royalty inherent in deciding cases of life and death.
  • R’ Moshe Dovid Valle writes that the initial letters of “es sharvit hazahav” (“gold scepter”) in the verse spell out “isha” (“female”), representative of H-Shem’s feminine aspect, otherwise known as the Shechina. In other words, it would be this manifestation of H-Shem in the world that would ultimately decide the success or failure of Esther’s current plan of action.

Esther 4:11, Question 3. Why does the verse use the active verb “to kill” instead of the more passive, better fit of “to be killed?”

R’ Joseph Pearlman writes that the verse uses the active verb “to kill” instead of the more passive, “to be killed” because it was anyone’s responsibility to kill the transgressor. Anyone who approached the king would automatically become Public Enemy #1, and would be liable to death at the hands of anyone eager to show one’s patriotism and fealty to the king.