- 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.
- 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.
יעַשֶׂרֶת בְּנֵי הָמָן בֶּן–הַמְּדָתָאצֹרֵר הַיְּהוּדִים הָרָגוּ וּבַבִּזָּהלֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶת–יָדָם
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?
- Midrash Rebbe Akiva ben Yosef al Osion Ketanos writes that the small letter zayin in Vayizasa hints to the seven negative characteristics which Haman ascribed to the Jews (Esther 3:8):
1. am echad – they are singular
2. mifuzar – they are spread apart
3. mifurad – they are splintered among themselves
4. bichol midinos – they are everywhere
5. vi’daseihem shonos – their laws are different from ours
6.dasei hamelech einamosim – they ignore your law
7.ein shoveh li’hanicham – they are not worth keeping
חוְאֵת ׀ פּוֹרָתָא וְאֵת ׀ אֲדַלְיָאוְאֵת ׀ אֲרִידָתָא
8.And Porasa and Adalya and Aridasa.
טוְאֵת ׀ פַּרְמַשְׁתָּא וְאֵת ׀ אֲרִיסַיוְאֵת ׀ אֲרִדַי וְאֵת ׀ וַיְזָתָא
9. And Parmashta and Arisai and Aridai and Vayizasa.
- The Talmud (Megillah 16b) explains that the large letter vuv indicates that all of Haman’s sons were hanged on one, long pole.
- In particular, R’ Moshe Dovid Valle writes that Vayizasa was chosen for this message because his hate of the Jews was the greatest.
- 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.
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).