Esther 9:12, Question 2. Why does the verse mention the ten sons of Haman?

Pirkei d’Rebbe Eliezer (50) as explained by Peirush Maharzav, uses this verse’s mention of Haman’s ten sons, as well as three other mentions (Esther 9:10, 9:13, and 9:14) of his ten sons, to suggest that Haman had a total of forty sons, or ten times four.

Advertisements

Esther 9:12, Question 1. How does Achashverosh feel about his dead citizens?

יב וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה הָרְגוּ הַיְּהוּדִים וְאַבֵּד חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת אִישׁ וְאֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת בְּנֵיהָמָן בִּשְׁאָר מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ מֶה עָשׂוּ וּמַהשְּׁאֵלָתֵךְ וְיִנָּתֵן לָךְ וּמַהבַּקָּשָׁתֵךְ עוֹד וְתֵעָשׂ

12. And the king said to Esther the Queen, “In Shushan the capital, the Yehudim killed and destroyed five hundred man and the ten sons of Haman. In the remaining states of the king, what did they do? What do you ask and it will be given you. And what do you request more and it will be done.”

  • In the first half of this verse, the tone seems to imply that Achashverosh was upset about the casualties. In fact, the Midrash Lekach Tov writes that Achashverosh was actually upset about his dead citizens, but H-Shem controls leaders, as the verse (Mishlei 21:1) teaches that the hearts of kings are in the Hands of H-Shem.
  • R’ Dovid Feinstein points out that the tone of the second half of the verse certainly sounds as though Achashverosh seems unaffected by this loss of life.
  • The Talmud (Megillah 16b) describes this sudden change of heart as an angel “slapping him on his lips.”
  • R’ Mendel Weinbach suggests that such a slap has this effect because Achashverosh suddenly felt Heaven did not want him speaking in an upset manner toward Esther. It literally hurt to speak the way he had been.
  • Interestingly, the Midrash (Bireishis Rabba 92:7) notes this verse as one of ten kal v’chomer (“a fortiori”) arguments in TaNaCh. In other words, if the Jews killed 500 people in Shushan, how much more likely did they kill more elsewhere!
  • In fact, the Alshich points out that Achashverosh must have been thinking that if so many were killed in Shushan – where the informed public was ready for a fight – how much more-so in other parts of the kingdom!
  • On the other hand, the M’nos HaLevi quotes R’ Gakon’s opinion that the bloodthirsty Achashverosh was disappointed that such a relatively small number of his people were killed after the Jews had from Pesach until Adar 13th to prepare for battle. This is why he asked if he could do more to help.
  • Malbim explains that Achashverosh did not know there would be so many Jew-haters. From a place of genuine concern, he offers Esther more help.

Esther 9:11, Question 2. Why does Achashverosh get an accounting of the dead?

  • According to Malbim, the Jews provided Achashverosh with a count of the dead in order to demonstrate to the king that the very existence of these 500 major enemies of the Jews implied the existence of countless more minor enemies.
  • The Yad HaMelech sees in this accounting the Jews’ report to the king of how many spoils were not touched.
  • The Maamar Mordechai points out that Achashverosh – having risen to the top of Persian society as a military leader – would have enjoyed hearing these numbers of military casualties and exploits.
  • It is the opinion of Rav Galico, however, that the fatalities were reported to Achashverosh by the enemies of the Jews in order to anger Achashverosh. It was yet another minor miracle that he did not become upset.

Esther 9:11, Question 1. Why does the verse stress that this happened that day?

יאבַּיּוֹם הַהוּא בָּא מִסְפַּר הַהֲרוּגִיםבְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ

11.On that day, the count of the killed in Shushan the capital came before the king.

  • According to Yosef Lekach, the verse stresses that this occurred on that day because Mordechai told Jews to stop the killing in the afternoon, although they had permission for the entire day. This was done in order to show that we are not blood-thirsty. This is the reason they were given an extra day.

Esther 9:10, Question 3. Why did the Yehudim not take the spoils?

  • The Talmud (Megillah 7a) notes that one of the proofs that Megillas Esther was written with ruach hakodesh (see Introduction) is that no human writer could possibly know that the Jews did not take any spoils.
  • Rashi writes that the Jews had rights to the spoils, but decided to wave those rights, and give the spoils to the king in order to maintain friendly relations with the palace.
  • The Dena Pishra writes that they did not take spoils because they did not want others to think that the Jews’ motivation was financial.
  • In M’aarchei Lev, Rav Moshe Schwab writes that since this was the property of Amalek, it was forbidden to take, as was the case for Shaul (Shmuel 1 15:3). and this is why the Jews refrained from doing so here.
  • In fact, the Binyan Ariel and Nachal Eshkol write that the Jews’ self-control in this incident was a tikun for the sin of Shaul in sparing (Shmuel 1 15:9) Amalek’s property.
  • Interestingly, the M’lo HaOmer and Me’am Loez both note that the initial letters of the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth words of this verse, uvabeeza lo shalchu es (“and from their spoils they did not send”) can be rearranged to spell Shaul.
  • The Sfas Emes writes that the Jews took the spoils, but destroyed them in an effort to not benefit from the property.
  • However, R’ Yitzchak Yeruchem Diskin writes in Ohelim that Jews have an obligation to take the property of Amalek and destroy it, but did not do so here. The reason was that the Talmud (Megillah 16a) considers Haman to have been a slave. As such, he relinquished all rights to personal belongings. This includes his children. This also answers the question of how his grandchildren could study Torah in Bnei Brak if Amalek is never allowed to join the Jewish people. Such is not the case for his grandchildren because of his status of being a slave.
  • Megillas Seris adds another reason they did not take the spoils – they only had one day to kill Amalek, and they did not want to run the risk of missing the opportunity to fulfill this mitzva. In the course of performing a mitzva, they totally ignored anything ancillary to killing out their enemies.
  • The Gerrer Rebbe notes that matanos la’evyonim, the Halachic (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 695:4) injunction to donate to the poor on Purim is in honor of the impoverished Jews of the time not taking the spoils of their enemies, despite their needs.

Esther 9:10, Question 2. Why does the verse not use the word v’abeid (“and they destroyed”) as it did previously (Esther 9:6)?

  • R’ Chaim Kanievsky shlit”a writes that this verse does not use the word v’abeid (“and they destroyed”) as previously (Esther 9:6) because this situation was different. He quotes the Vilna Gaon, who noted there, that the verse uses the word vi’abed (“and destroyed”) to help the Persians forget the damage done to them by the Jews. Here, however, this was not supposed to be forgotten, but rather publicized and displayed for all to see.

Esther 9:10, Question 1. Why does the verse repeat that there were ten sons of Haman?

יעַשֶׂרֶת בְּנֵי הָמָן בֶּןהַמְּדָתָאצֹרֵר הַיְּהוּדִים הָרָגוּ וּבַבִּזָּהלֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶתיָדָם

10.The ten sons of Haman son of Hamdasa, tormentor of the Yehudim, were killed. And from their spoils they did not send their hands.

  • According to Rashi, the verse repeats that these were the ten sons of Haman because they were evil, and each tried to prevent the Jews from rebuilding the Beis HaMikdash. As governors and dignitaries, they did whatever they could to prevent the Jews from returning to the Holy Land.
  • This is accented by the Talmudic (Megillah 16b) custom is for the reader of Megillas Esther on Purim to read all of the names and “the ten sons of Haman” in our verse in one breath.
  • R’ Yosef Rosen of Rogochov explains the old custom (Orach Chaim 690) of the reader pausing at this point and congregation reading all of the names of Haman’s sons during the public reading, as well. He explains that ideally, everyone should be reading the Megillah on their own. Of course, we can all fulfill our obligation by hearing someone else’s reading, but how can we fulfill an obligation of “one breath” unless we read it in one breath, ourselves?