- According to the Halacha (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 695:4), each Jew is required to send two foods to at least one other Jew on Purim.
- The Peleh Yo’Eitz notes that the best way to perform the mitzva is for a great person to give to a lesser member of society. This would create both joy and the potential for one mitzva to lead to others.
- After all, as the Sfas Emes emphasizes, one of the intents behind this mitzva is to debunk Haman’s slander (Esther 3:8) that Jews are splintered. Besides, acts of chesed are the foundational groundwork for the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash (bimheira biyameinu).
- Perhaps this is one reason for the Talmudic opinion (Megillah 7b) that one could also fulfill one’s obligation of mishloach manos by sending Torah.
- Interestingly, Rav Shlomo Alkabetz wrote the oft-quoted M’nos HaLevi as a mishloach manos gift to his in-laws.
- In Eparyon, Rav Ganzfried, author of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, considers mishloach manos as a cunning way to give charity. Since all people will be giving gifts to their friends, the poor would not feel embarrassed by accepting a handout. This also explains why the order of the mitzvos listed in this verse seems out of order, with the more important mitzva of tzedaka being mentioned last.
- The Sha’arey Simcha writes that the reason for this order is that it is debatable which miracle was greater: the destruction of our enemies or the raising of the Jews. Therefore, there are two mitzvos, paralleling each of these miracles, respectively.
- The Ohel Moshe notes that, as opposed to other Holy Days, where the mitzvos of the day (i.e. lulav, matza, shofar, etc.) are only relevant for those days, Purim’s mitzvos (i.e. tzedakah, chesed, learning Megillas Esther, etc.) are relevant all year long.
- R’ Meir Yechiel of Ostrovtza says that the implication of the word “re’eyhu” (“his fellow”) is that every Jews is considered worthy of receiving mishloach manos on Purim in H-Shem’s Eyes.
- The Chasam Sofer was asked if mishloach manos are Halachically for increasing unity or to help all Jews have the minimal means with which to celebrate. If it is for unity, then it is for the benefit of the giver; if it is to allow everyone to celebrate, it is for the receiver. A practical difference would be in a case where someone refuses to accept. In such a case, has the sender fulfilled one’s obligation? If it is for the giver, the answer is yes, whereas if it is for the receiver, the answer is no.
- Once, when about to receive mishloach manos, the Brisker Rav looked outside to check if it was yet sunset, and thus no longer Purim. He was willing to accept mishloach manos for purposes of the mitzva, but was unwilling to accept it as a regular gift, in fulfillment of the words of the wisest of men (Mishlei 15:27) that one “who hates gifts lives.”
- Regarding the unique language of this verse, the Ben Ish Chai notes that the gematria of manos (“gifts”) (40+50+6+400=496) is the same as the 50 cubits of Haman’s gallows with the word maves (“death”) (40+6+400=446), meaning that this mitzva is intended to remind us of Haman’s plan to kill Mordechai.
- Class Participant YML suggests that maybe taking the wealth would have make the Jews wealthier than Haman, raising Achashverosh’s paranoia.
- The Sfas Emes notes that the three incidents in which the verses emphasize that the Jews did not take the spoils parallel the three actions of Shaul and his people for which the threatened annihilation of the Jews of Persia served as a tikkun – the sparing of Agag, the sparing of the livestock, and the taking of the Amalekite gold and silver.
- The Ginzei HaMelech writes that although the Jews did not take the spoils, the verse implies that someone did; namely, Mordechai. Mordechai did, indeed, take the spoils by accepting Haman’s house (Esther 8:2). He used this wealth to help finance the rebuilding of the Temple. In a powerful display of vinahafoch Hu (“and He reversed”), Haman’s wealth was used to build the very structure which he dedicated his life to destroy.
R’ Chaim Kanievsky explains that the verse calls the gallows on which Haman’s sons are hanged “the” tree to demonstrate that it is a known tree, the very one on which Haman is already hanging.
- According to the Vilna Gaon, Esther requested that Haman’s sons be hanged to make it clear that the Jews were acting in accordance with the will of the king, avoiding any future persecution. By hanging Haman’s sons, it was sign to everyone that the king approved of the Jews’ actions.
- Ohel Moshe writes that the people could have theoretically thought that Haman was hanged for attempting to kill Mordechai, the rescuer of the king. Esther wanted it to be very clear that, in actual fact, for generations that this was not some political soap opera, but rather H-Shem did all of this for the sake of the Jews.
- R’ Yehonason Eibshutz similarly demonstrates that it is not from Achashverosh, but from H-Shem.
- Interestingly, Yalkut Pisron Torah (273) writes that this group of sons were handed over to the Jews in the merit of the Jews’ keeping the mitzva (Devarim 22:6-7) of shiluach hakan (“chasing away the mother bird”).
- In the Parsha of Titzaveh, which is usually read before Purim, in the first verse (Shemos 27:20), H-Shem commands the Jewish people to make the clothing of the kohanim using the words, “es bnei Yisroel v’yik’chu.” Rabbi Yosef Freedman points out that the last letters of those four words can be rearranged to spell talui (“hanging”) and the first letters of the same words can be rearranged to spell av v’yud (“the father and ten”).
- R’ Moshe Dovid Valle notes that the ten sons of Haman, and Haman himself, hang on the tree together, and those eleven people parallel the eleven1 curses mentioned in the Torah (Devarim 27:15-26) reserved for those who do not keep H-Shem’s Law. Their hanging should remove from us these curses.
- Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair (https://ohr.edu/purim/deeper_insights/3440) writes that these dead bodies needed to be hanged because the Talmud (Sanhedrin 97b) promises that Moshiach will come to the Jews even if they do not deserve him. This will occur after a wave of teshuva (“repentance”) takes us over after the evil decrees of a tyrant worse than Haman, himself.
1Added together, there are twelve curses in those verses, not eleven. See Rashi there (Devarim 27:26) that the twelfth and final of these curses is a general one that encompasses the entire Torah. Perhaps this is a reason for R’ Moshe Dovid Valle to have not included it in his calculation of the number of curses.
- The Maamar Mordechai writes that Esther mentions the Jews of Shushan specifically because they had been under the threat of annihilation the earliest, and had knowingly been suffering under the shadow of death all of this time. It was only fair for them to reap the benefits of the victory first.
- As understood by Rabbi Jonathan Taub, Malbim notes that this is first time for the remainder of Megillas Esther that Shushan is not called Shushan HaBirah (which he translates as the palace compound). He answers that Esther wanted permission to kill in the city as they had in the palace.
- In a very different perspective, R’ Shimon Schwab writes that the verse mentions Shushan specifically because the Jews only killed there because they were afraid elsewhere. Esther wanted to show that faith is the thing that helps them. When the Jews do their part, H-Shem will do His part. He continues that this lack of faith is the reason for a Shushan Purim – it is a sign that the Jews in Shushan did not deserve to join the Jews in celebration on the same day.
- The Ben Ish Chai points out that Shushan (300+6+300+50=656) has the same gematria (and even same letters) as sason (“joy”) (300+300+6+50=656), which is what the Jews experienced (Esther 8:16) upon their miraculous rescue from obliteration.
- Furthermore, it is also the same gematria as lashon ra (“evil speech”) (30+300+6+50+200+70=656). Evil speech is what Haman tried to use (Esther 3:8) to defame the Jews before Achashverosh when requesting permission to exterminate them.
יב וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה הָרְגוּ הַיְּהוּדִים וְאַבֵּד חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת אִישׁ וְאֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת בְּנֵי–הָמָן בִּשְׁאָר מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ מֶה עָשׂוּ וּמַה–שְּׁאֵלָתֵךְ וְיִנָּתֵן לָךְ וּמַה–בַּקָּשָׁתֵךְ 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.
The Midrash (Esther Rabba 10:10 and a number of other Midrashim) teaches that the turnaround mentioned in this verse refers to all of Haman’s plans – from the queen whom Haman installed for more power taking his power, to the tree he prepared for Mordechai becoming the one on which he was hanged, to the wealth he gathered becoming Mordechai’s property, to the honors he wanted being given to his enemy, to the date Haman picked for the Jews’ extermination becoming the date of their success – absolutely everything backfiring.
The Kol Reena points out that the reason for Haman’s thinking of Adar as the ideal month to wipe out the Jews was that Moshe died on that month. Ironically, Moshe’s merits are what protected them.
R’ Hutner notes that even the misuse of Temple vessels (Esther 1:7) in order to show that it would never be rebuilt was turned around because the Purim story led to the Beis Hamikdash being rebuilt.
The Dubno Maggid writes that this turnaround shows how much hate Haman had. After all, the Talmud (Brachos 7a) teaches that we can see the evil that Bilam intended from the diametric opposite good with which he blessed the Jews. Here, too, Haman’s hate can be seen from the positive turnaround that resulted.
The Maharal notes a principle of physics that when one throws a rock against a wall, it bounces back somewhat. One could measure the level of Haman’s hate from the force with which Haman was punished. As the Torah (Devarim 19:19) commands regarding false witnesses, Haman got back an equal measure of what he intended against the Jewish people.
The Dubno Maggid also writes that Haman’s failed decree exposed the Jews’ enemies, who likely gathered arms in preparation for the attack, and this effectively made it easier to expose these Jew haters. Similarly, Yehu gathered together worshipers of Baal by promising a demonstration of his tremendous worship as a ruse to capture them and punish them for idolatry (Melachim 2 10:19).
R’ Shmuel Aharon Rubin writes that when the Talmud (Megillah 10b) says “we were slaves, but H-Shem did not abandon us,” it is in relation to the Purim story. He explains that we were like slaves because the Talmud (Kiddushin 36a) says that the Jews are called the children of H-Shem when they fulfill His Will, and are called slaves when they do not. The Jews’ attendance at Achashverosh’s feast demonstrates that they were not fulfilling H-Shem’s directive, but He nevertheless “did not abandon” the Jews.
R’ Hutner adds that since the existence of the Jews is without limit, rejoicing on Purim is also without limit. There is a famous story of a friend of mine who had gone missing the day after Purim. He was eventually found on a Sunday night after he had fallen on a hike on Friday. Without nutrition since Friday, he was only able to survive because the day previous was Purim, and the person sitting next to him at the Purim seudah kept piling food onto his plate to encourage him to eat without restraint in fulfillment of the above dictum.