Esther 9:18, Question 1. Why is the Masoretic spelling of “Yehudim” with two letter yuds?

יח וְהַיְּהוּדִיים [וְהַיְּהוּדִים] אֲשֶׁרבְּשׁוּשָׁן נִקְהֲלוּ בִּשְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ וּבְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בּוֹ וְנוֹחַ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ וְעָשׂה אֹתוֹ יוֹם מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה

18. And the Yehudim who were in Shushan gathered on the thirteenth of it and on the fourteenth of it and were relieved on the fifteenth of it. And they made it a day of feasting and joy.

  • According to the Maharal, the Masoretic spelling of “Yehudim” with two letters yud because the first yud indicates genealogy. The second yud makes it plural. In actual fact, the word needs both yuds, and is written out in this full form to indicate that these Jews were completely dedicated to battle for H-Shem.
Advertisements

Esther 9:16, Question 3. Why does the verse mention again that the Jews did not take the spoils?

  • The Binyan Ariel writes that the verse mentions again that the Jews did not take the spoils to demonstrate that the reason they did not do so is because they interpreted Mordechai’s explicit allowance to take spoils (Esther 8:11) using the word lavoz (“to take spoils”) as an implied prohibition to do just that. After all, the word can also be translated as “disgusting,” as in an earlier verse (Esther 3:6). The Jews read Mordechai’s decree critically and in great detail, and looked at the spoils as something reprehensible, as he had implied.

Esther 9:16, Question 1. Why does the verse mention the Jews “standing on their souls?”

טז וּשְׁאָר הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בִּמְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ נִקְהֲלוּ ׀ וְעָמֹד עַלנַפְשָׁם וְנוֹחַ מֵאֹיְבֵיהֶם וְהָרֹג בְּשׂנְאֵיהֶם חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים אָלֶף וּבַבִּזָּה לֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶתיָדָם

16. And the remaining Yehudim who were in the states of the king gathered and stood on their souls, and were relieved of their enemies, and killed five and seventy thousand of their haters. And in their spoils they did not send their hands.

  • As Malbim points out, the army of the king was with the Jews in Shushan.
  • However, outside of Shushan, Dena Pishra writes, the verse had to mention that the Yehudim were “standing on their souls,” meaning they had more concern for their lives.
  • According to the Sfas Emes, unlike the days of Moshe (Devarim 4:10) where they needed to be artificially gathered together, the Jews united themselves together in a show of oneness. However, they knew that such displays were not enough, and they also “stood on their souls,” meaning they focused on the emotional hate for everything Amalek.

Esther 9:14, Question 2: Why does the verse use the term daas (“law”)?

According to Dena Pishra and Yad HaMelech, this verse can be interpreted homiletically as meaning that the Jew accepted the daas (“law”) of the Torah. This was not just an acceptance of the Written Torah, but as daas Torah implies in later works, the Jews accepted rabbinic authority, especially that of Mordechai.

Esther 9:13, Question 1. Why does Esther ask for another day?

יג וַתֹּאמֶר אֶסְתֵּר אִםעַלהַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב יִנָּתֵן גַּםמָחָר לַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּשׁוּשָׁן לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדַת הַיּוֹם וְאֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת בְּנֵיהָמָן יִתְלוּ עַלהָעֵץ

13. And Esther said, “If it is good for the king, give also tomorrow to the Yehudim who are in Shusham to do according to today’s law, and the sons of Haman hang on the tree.”

  • In a move reminiscent of her request (Esther 5:8) for a second party (also requesting it for “tomorrow!”), given the opportunity to ask of anything from the king, Esther asks for a seeming repeat of the previous day.
  • M’nos HaLevi explains that this would give the opportunity to kill more of the Jews’ enemies, avoiding the possibility of their getting revenge.
  • According to the Ben Ish Chai, Esther wanted two days to mirror the two days Haman planned in his decree – one day to kill off the people, and the second day to take their belongings.
  • The Megillas Sesarim notes that the Jewish court met in Shushan, as is evident from the fact that Mordechai (who was on the court) lived there, and the Talmud (Megillah 12a) says Achashverosh consulted the Jewish scholars regarding Vashti’s behavior. That being the case, the Shechina had some influence in Shushan since the Talmud (Brachos 6a) teaches that the Shechina resides where a Jewish court judges. Esther felt that the Shechina left as soon as Haman made the decree to kill the Jews. The second day was intended to allow for the Shechina to return.
  • The Ginzei HaMelech posits that Esther requested a second day to effect a tikkun for the mistake of Shaul in letting Agag live. He quotes the Pachad Yitzchak, who writes that there were previously two wars with Amalek, a defensive one when they attacked in the time of Moshe (Shemos 17:8-16), and an offensive battle in which H-Shem commanded their eradication in the time of Shaul (Shmuel 1 15:1-9). The first day symbolizes that first war because it was also defensive. The requested second day would represent the second, offensive, war. He adds that since the word, melech also represents H-Shem, Esther is asking the Creator for a future (as Rashi defines machar (“tomorrow”)) directive to destroy Amalek, in the days of Moshiach.
  • Rav Shlomo Brevda (zt”l) writes that Esther asked for a second day so that people would not say that Haman’s erred in his interpretation of astrology in choosing the 13th of Adar. Esther wanted it to be crystal clear that, although Haman’s astrological skills were perfectly accurate, H-Shem changed the decree to save the Jews.

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.