12. “On one day in all the states of King Achashverosh, on the thirteenth of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar.”
Rashi explains that the gentiles’ property was only included in the letter because the Jews’ property had been threatened in Haman’s original decree.
The Vilna Gaon writes that the Jews did not want to plunder, and it would have been enough for them to be out of this great danger, but Mordechai and Esther had to have parallel language to Haman’s decree (Esther 3:13).
The Maamar Mordechai points out that when a government kills someone, it seizes that person’s property; here, Achashverosh wanted to give it to the Jews.
Malbim notes that there was less time for looting to stress that the Jews were really focused on self-defense.
In Yosef Lekach’s opinion, Achashverosh gave permission to take spoils, but Mordechai limited the time in which it could be done to lessen the Jews’ ability to enjoy the plunder in order to avoid the same problem as occurred in the time of Shaul (Shmuel 1 15:9), when they did not completely wipe out the property of Amalek for the sake of their flocks.
R’ Moshe Dovid Valle notes that the Torah (Devarim 19:18) speaks of eidim zomemim, who are false witnesses proven to have not been in the location of the crime regarding which they are testifying. Their punishment is to receive the same consequences their testimony would have incurred on the person about whom they testified. Here, too, the enemies of the Jews – having testified falsely about the Jews – receive the consequences they wanted for us.
10. And he wrote in the name of the king, Achashverosh, and he sealed with the king’s ring, and he sent books through runners on horses, riders on the rechesh the achashtirans, sons of the ramachs.
Yad HaMelech writes that the verse stresses that Mordechai signed in the name of Achashverosh because Achashverosh indeed drafted these documents physically by his own hand, something he had never done before. Then, Mordechai signed it.
Megillas Sesarim, though, explains that the decree against the Jews’ enemies was sealed by the King of kings, H-Shem.
According to the Vilna Gaon, Mordechai sends these letters to the leaders in order for them to fear Mordechai. Had he sent the letters to the general populace, who were unaware of the political situation in the royal palace, they might have disregarded the letter.
The Dena Pishra points out that Mordechai sent fewer letters (only to the leaders) because time was of the essence. To save the Jews’ lives, it was worthwhile to rush.
According to Megillas Sesarim, Achashverosh is concerned that annulling the decree would lead his people to say that not only is the king fickle, but he is also playing favorites. Historically, nepotism has been a legitimate cause for rebellion. Many wars have begun over the choosing of an undeserving successor.
R’ Avigdor Bonchek writes that Achashverosh is afraid to annul the decree because he is overcompensating for his own fickleness.
In accordance with the previously mentioned opinion of the Rema (see #458 above), there are things stamped with the seal of the King that cannot be changed. There are sins for which teshuva (“repentance”) can gain atonement, but will still not be taken back, like chillul H-Shem (“debasement of H-Shem’s Name”). The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Teshuva 1:4) writes that such a sin can only be overwritten by a diametrical act of Kiddush H-Shem (“sanctification of H-Shem’s Name”).
In his commentary, R’ Meir Zlotowitz explains that Achashverosh gave permission to override, but not annul the previous decree. This was a dilemma for Mordechai and Esther to make Haman’s decree powerless without challenging its authority.
The Vilna Gaon and the Malbim wrote that Mordechai’s decree could only affect the vague, public copy of the original decree. It could not change the explicit, private memo that each governor received.
The Malbim adds that Achashverosh’s plan was for the second document to only clarify the first, vague decree.
The Ibn Ezra notes that Achashverosh could have come up with excuses for first document, like saying that the first document was the result of language confusion because Haman changed the wording of the original draft of the decree from “Jews can kill” to “Jews can be killed.”
Similarly, the Alshich writes that Achashverosh was saying that Haman left out a comma when he said (Esther 3:13) “l’abeid es kolHaYehudim” (“to kill all of the Yehudim”). A comma placed after kol could make the phrase appear as “to kill all, (by whom?) the Yehudim!”
8. “And you write about the Yehudim as is good in your eyes in the name of the king and seal what is written with the ring of the king because what is written in the name of the king and sealed with the ring of the king cannot be returned.”
M’nos HaLevi interprets Achashverosh’s words as explicit permission for Mordechai and Esther to could write whatever they wanted since the leaders would ignore the first decree due to Haman’s being hanged and Mordechai’s being promoted. At the very least, they would be confused and will do nothing – for or against the Jews – hedging their bets.
Interestingly, Ramban, in his Torah commentary (on Bireishis 41:42), uses this verse as proof that the king gifting someone a ring is the same as giving one’s personalized signet, or power of attorney.
Rashi explains that Achashverosh was using his recent hanging of Haman to demonstrate his fealty to Esther’s position, giving implicit permission for her to write a new decree. The Persian people will, after all, realize that Esther has the kingdom’s full support.
According to the Ibn Ezra, Achashverosh felt that his people would think Haman’s hanging implied that the earlier decree (written less than a week earlier) was a fraud.
However, the Alshich notes that only the residents of Shushan know Haman was hanged; those living in the remaining cities and villages of the kingdom’s 127 provinces did not know Achashverosh’s feelings on the matter. Therefore, new decrees needed to be written to keep them abreast of the changing political climate.
The Darchei Dovid explains Achashverosh’s reference to Haman’s hanging by quoting the Talmud (Taanis 29a) that a rule in Rome – and presumably in other ancient civilizations – was that when an officer of the court died, all decrees were annulled. This was due to the fact that people considered the death to be a punishment for a seemingly unfavorable decree. Therefore, Achashverosh argues, Haman’s death should have annulled the decree against the Jews.
R’ Elisha Gallico writes that Achashverosh felt people needed to know that Haman’s property was given to Esther (Esther 8:1) because Haman bought the rights to the Jews from Achashverosh (Esther 3:9). His hanging, and the transfer of his property to Esther, effectively bestowing upon Esther control of her people’s fate.
The Dena Pishra explains that Achashverosh was telling Esther to not worry about his people harming the Jews because Haman was not only hanged, but even remained hanging.