Esther 9:27, Question 1. Why does the verse mention establishing before accepting?

כז קִיְּמוּ וְקִבְּלֻ הַיְּהוּדִים ׀ עֲלֵיהֶם ׀ וְעַל–זַרְעָם וְעַל כָּל–הַנִּלְוִים עֲלֵיהֶם וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר לִהְיוֹת עֹשִׂים אֵת שְׁנֵי הַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה כִּכְתָבָם וְכִזְמַנָּם בְּכָל–שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה

27. The Yehudim established and accepted on themselves and on their seed and on all who join them, and not to pass over the being of having done these two days as their writing and as their times each and every year.

• On a simple level, the Maharal writes that the verse mentions establishing before accepting because the Jews established in the year following the Purim story that which they had already accepted in the year of the event.
• In his commentary on the Torah (Bireishis 6:18), the Ramban explains this phrasing to indicate that the Jews accepted upon themselves and their descendants for perpetuity that which they had already placed upon themselves previously.
• In a later comment on the Torah (Devorim 27:26), however, the Ramban adds that this verse means that the Jews accepted that Torah and all of her mitzvos are true.
• The Talmud (Shevuos 39a) quotes the verse in the Torah (Devorim 29:13-14) in which H-Shem establishes a covenant with all of the Jews at that time, and forever. The Talmud then uses the present verse’s phrase of “kimu v’kiblu” (“they established and accepted”) to explain how we could know that future generations of Jews accepted to take on any future, additional mitzvos.
• The Talmud (Megilla 7a, Makkos 23b) teaches that the Heavenly court established above what was accepted by the Jews below.
  • R’ Shmuel Aharon Rubin explains that this means that Heaven confirmed the earthly ruling – like witnesses – giving it legitimacy.
  • Kol Eliyahu notes that this is the idea behind the Talmud’s (Megilla 7a) proof that Megillas Esther is written with Ruach HaKodesh (see Introduction). Otherwise, how would Mordechai and Esther have known that Heaven accepted the Jews’ pronouncement?
• The Talmud (Shabbos 88a) tells the story of the Jews’ accepting the Torah at Har Sinai. Once they accepted the Torah with the words (Shemos 24:7) “naaseh v’nishmah” (“we will do and we will listen”), H-Shem lifted a mountain over them, and threatened to drop it over them if they would not accept the Torah. What was the reason for this if they had just done exactly that?
  • Tosfos answers that the Jews accepted the Written Torah with complete enthusiasm, but not the Oral Torah. They re-accepted the Torah in the conclusion of Megillas Esther, when the verse (Esther 9:27) writes “kimu v’kiblu” (“they established accepted”). Many commentators are bothered by the implied coercion in this tactic.
  • Firstly, Rashi (on the Talmud there) notes that the coercion was intended for the Jews to use as defense in the future to lessen any punishment. A Jew thereby always has a ready excuse in the Heavenly court that he never accepted the Torah’s responsibilities willingly.
  • The Sfas Emes notes that the word order parallels “naaseh v’nishmah” (“we will do and we will listen”) (Shemos 24:7). Tosfos explains that, after accepting the Torah, the Jews got scared by the fires around the mountain, and back-paddled, taking back their promise.
  • The Maharal (Tiferes Yisroel 32) argues on Tosfos, saying that the message H-Shem imparted on the Jewish people for the rest of history by holding the mountain over them was that the Torah was not simply a subject that they could accept or not, at their whim – rather, the entire world was only made for the purpose of our serving the Torah, and rejecting it (chas v’Shalom) was not a viable option within the scope of our prerogative. Their re-acceptance in the time of Purim, therefore, was an act of consenting to these terms. The Maharal quotes the Midrash (Tanchuma, Noach 3) that the Jews at Mt. Sinai only accepted the Written Law. This did not include the effort, discipline, study, and observance of the Oral Law. The Maharal continues that coercion was necessary to show the world that accepting the Torah was not just a nice gesture to voluntary accept, but a necessary part of life for the world’s continued existence.
  • However, the Ramban and the Ran learn this passage as H-Shem threatening the Jews that if they do not accept the Torah, they would not receive Eretz Yisroel. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 105a) quotes the prophet (Yechezkiel 20:32) that “what comes to your mind shall definitely not occur; in that which you say, ‘We will be like the nations, like the families of the lands, to serve wood and stone.’” The Talmud explains that – like the other nations of the world – once the Jews were no longer in their land, they felt that they were no longer responsible to keep Torah. They realized the error of this philosophy after the Purim miracle, leading to their re-acceptance of the Torah.
  • The Ritva points out that such is just the weak argument of the heretic. The Talmud’s statement means that even if there was coercion, it was re-accepted on Purim.
  • In the “Drashos” section of Oneg Yom Tov, the author writes that just as a marriage could theoretically be annulled by a precondition, so too one could argue that the Jews accepted the Torah at Sinai under the precondition of receiving the land of Israel. This precondition was annulled by the Jews’ renewed acceptance in Persia.
  • The Torah Temimah and the Rayach Dodayim both point out that the word order of “established and accepted” implies that one should first accept, and only then fulfill the Torah.
  • The Chofetz Chaim writes that the generation of the desert was not reluctant to accept the Torah, but was merely concerned about the difficulties to be endured by future generations of Jews keeping the Torah through their future exiles. They knew that the Torah’s many mitzvos would effectively alienate us from our surrounding neighbors. Purim proves that the Jews can keep the Torah even in the most hostile of environments. As the Sages say, the Torah protects us and rescues us. The Torah is not counterproductive to our survival in exile – quite the opposite; the Torah is our key to continued existence.
  • The Dubno Maggid quotes a Talmudic (Yerushalmi Megilla 1:5) debate between H-Shem and the gentile nations. The nations ask, “why did You not lift mountain over our heads? We would have accepted the Torah, too!” In response, the Dubno Maggid tells a parable about two fathers who come to a doctor with their two sons. Both boys refuse to eat, the first one being sick, and the other who is weaning. The doctor tells the father of the sick boy to keep his son away from food and that will force him to eat on his own when he becomes hungry. The doctor tells the father of the weaning boy to force open the boy’s mouth, and to stuff the most delicious foods into it. When the fathers showed surprise regarding the two different suggestions for seemingly the same ailment, the doctor explained that the sick child’s body is repulsed by food, and he needs to stay away from food that can otherwise cause him harm. The weaning child, however, has never had solid food before, and must be force-feed in order to taste food’s sweetness. Like the sick boy, H-Shem knew that the that the gentiles would not appreciate Torah anyway, so He kept it away from them. Furthermore, similar to a weaning boy, the Jewish people were simply unaccustomed to Torah, and needed to be somewhat forced into accepting it. After experiencing its sweetness, the Jews would naturally choose to continue on the right path.
  • In the view of the Sfas Emes, during the first acceptance, the Jews only accepted the Torah verbally – not in hearts, as is hinted to by our singer (Tehillim 78:36) “they tried to trick Him with their mouths.” The situation was very different in Persia, where their hearts were completely invested. He also notes that, just like first acceptance followed the defeat of Amalek, so too in Persia.
  • R’ Yisroel Simcha Schorr notes that, interestingly, the Mishna’s three day allowance to publicly read Megillas Esther for Purim (Megilla 1:1) parallel the three days of preparation the Jews needed to receive the Torah.
  • Perhaps all of this is why, as R’ Dovid Feinstein writes, anyone who wants to join Jews must first accept Purim.
  • Rav Shach writes in Mach’shavos Mussar that, since Purim is an appropriate time to re-accept the Torah, it should be celebrated with learning – not drunken revelry.
  • R’ Henoch Leibowitz notes that at the acceptance of the Torah at Sinai, since so much time (49 days) passed since miracles in Mitzrayim, it was difficult for person to wake oneself up.
  • On these points, Tefillas Chana says that the Jews accepted the Torah because they realized that everything, even nature, is from H-Shem.
  • R’ Yaakov Kaminetsky explains the significance of this acceptance of Torah. Miracles are, after all, easy to accept as G-dly, but seeing H-Shem’s guiding Hand in nature leaves a far more lasting impression.

Esther 9:1, Question 3. To which turnaround does the verse refer?

• 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.

Esther 7:9, Question 6. Why do the rabbis require us to praise Charvona with the title “zachur latov?”

• As mentioned previously, the song “Shoshanas Yaakov” concludes with the words, “v’gam Charvona zachur latov” (“and also Charvona should be remembered for good”).
• R’ Meir Zlotowitz explains that Charvona is so well remembered because his advice prevented Haman from speaking in his defense or offering a bribe.
• The Ben Ish Chai adds that Esther’s complaint to the kings was rather general. In detailing Haman’s plans, Charvona’s statement was specific.
• In Maileetz Yosher, the author suggests that Charvona is praised because Achashverosh changed his mind so often because of the Talmudic (Nedarim 10a) dictum that “evil people are filled with regrets.”
• According to the opinion that this manifestation of Charvona was actually Eliyahu dressed up as Charvona, the Dubno Maggid asks why Charvona is praised if Eliyahu was merely disguised as him. He answers that if people borrowed clothes to go to a wedding, they might bring back some delicacies from the wedding as a way to thank the lenders. Eliyahu, too, gave Charvona praise for allowing him to borrow his identity.
• The Shaar bas Rabbim explains that Charvona should be praised because when Eliyahu enters a person, he leaves a positive, indelible imprint on that person. This can be seen from a story in the Talmud (Yerushalmi Kiddushin 12:3) in which Rebbi (Yehudah HaNasi) became angry with R’ Chiya, his student. As a form of self-punishment, R’ Chiya stayed away from his teacher. On the 29^th day of this self-exile, Eliyahu in the guise of R’ Chiya came to Rebbe and healed him of a certain 13-year-old pain he had. The very next day, R’ Chiya came to apologize, whereupon Rebbe thanked him for healing him. R’ Chiya said, “It was not me,” to which Rebbe responded, “It must have been Eliyahu!” Due to Eliyahu’s borrowing his body, R’ Chiya visited Rebbe the next day because he was inspired and became a better person through his contact with Eliyahu.
• The Ginzei HaMelech notes that, in the song, “Shoshanas Yaakov,” we sing about Esther and Mordechai who risked their lives, and about Charvona, who seems to have done very little in comparison. This acts to demonstrate the truth of the Talmud’s (Avoda Zara 17a) statement that “there are those who acquire the world in one moment.” He continues to explain that Charvona’s name is therefore written with a hey to hint to his earning this world, which the Talmud (Menachos 29b) says was created with a hey.
• The Dubno Maggid concludes that either way, Charvona must have had some good because the Talmud (Shabbos 32a) says that H-Shem only causes blessing through those who are worthy.

Esther 7:9, Question 1. Who is Charvona?

ט וַיֹּאמֶר חַרְבוֹנָה אֶחָד מִן–הַסָּרִיסִים לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ גַּם הִנֵּה–הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר–עָשָׂה הָמָן לְמָרְדֳּכַי אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר–טוֹב עַל–הַמֶּלֶךְ עֹמֵד בְּבֵית הָמָן גָּבֹהַּ חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ תְּלֻהוּ עָלָיו

9. And Charvona, one of the eunuchs before the king, said, “Also, behold! Here is the tree that Haman made for Mordechai who said good regarding on the king. It is standing in Haman’s house fifty-cubit tall.” And the king said, “Hang him on it.”

•  The Malbim, Vilna Gaon, and Yosef Lekach propose that Charvona was simply one of the chamberlains sent to fetch Haman to feast (Esther 6:14).
• According to the Talmud (Megillah 16a), Charvona was an evil ally of Haman’s, intent on killing Mordechai. Once he saw that the plan would not succeed, he surrendered. This fits with the verse (Iyov 27:22) that allies of the wicked “will surely flee.”
• The Dubno Maggid explains this with the following allegory: A blind beggar works with a young boy. One day, the boy stole the blind beggar’s wallet with 30 coins. When he saw the beggar crying pitiably, the boy returned the wallet saying, “I found the wallet with the 30 coins.” Instead of thanking the boy, the beggar began to beat the boy mercilessly for the theft. How did he know that the boy stole it? How else could the boy have known that there were 30 coins in the bag? Likewise, the Talmud knows that Charvona is evil because how else could he have known that the gallows were 50 amos tall if he were not in on the plot.
• The Ben Ish Chai points out that Charvona noticed that Haman lost the ability to defend himself, and this emboldened him to speak up.
• The Midrash (Esther Rabba 10:9) lists what many of the angels and other Heavenly Beings were doing during the climax of the Purim story. It says that Eliyahu appeared like Charvona, and said the words attributed to him in this verse.
• Another Midrash (Yalkut 1059) and the Ibn Ezra concur that Charvona is Eliyahu.
• The Alshich adds that another proof that Charvona is Eliyahu is that the verse describes him as “before the king,” and Eliyahu is certainly a minister of the King of kings.
• Interestingly, the song, “Shoshanas Yaakov,” sung on Purim after the public reading of Megillas Esther ends with the words, “v’gam Charvona zachur latov” (“and also Charvona should be remembered for good”). Charvona is the only person who shares the epithet, “zachur latov” with Eliyahu.
• When Charvona is mentioned earlier (Esther 1:10), he is the third in a list of the king’s chamberlains/eunichs. The M’nos HaLevi notes that the name is spelled with a letter aleph at the end there, and with a letter hey at the end here. He explains that when Charvona was on the side of evil, his name is spelled with an aleph. When he repents, and is Eliyahu, it is spelled with a hey.
• In an explanation, R’ Dovid Feinstein writes that this name ending with an aleph means destruction in Aramaic. With a hey, it is a composite of “charav boneh” (“destroy, build”). In the process of true repentance, he was rebuilding that which he had earlier wanted to destroy – namely, Mordechai.
• Rabbeinu Bachya, in his commentary on the Torah writes that he was called Charvona because he helped destroy Haman.
• The Chasam Sofer and R’ Dovid Feinstein both say that with an aleph, it is the gentile Aramaic; with a hey, it is Hebrew, so it is Jewish.

Esther 7:6, Question 1. Why does Esther call Haman an “ish” (“man”)?

ו וַתֹּאמֶר אֶסְתֵּר אִישׁ צַר וְאוֹיֵב הָמָן הָרָע הַזֶּה וְהָמָן נִבְעַת מִלִּפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהַמַּלְכָּה

6. And Esther said, “A man who is an adversary and an enemy, this evil Haman.” And Haman was bewildered from before the king and the queen.

• It is especially puzzling that Esther calls Haman an “ish” (“man”) since, as R’ Dovid Feinstein points out, it usually signifies an important person. In this case, he writes, Haman is called an “ish” because he thought highly of himself.
• The Dubno Maggid writes that the word ish followed by an adjective indicates a central aspect of the subject’s character. Esther is therefore answering both of Achashverosh’s questions from above; who the person is and why he is doing it. As proof of this idea, the Dubno Maggid quotes the verse in the Torah that first describes Eisav¹ (Bireishis 25:27), in which he is called an “ish sadeh” (“man of the field”). In other words, the field is an intrinsic part of Eisav’s being. Therefore, Haman’s main characteristic is that he is a “tzar v’oivev,” an enemy. Amalek hates the Jews for no reason. The Dubno Maggid brings the allegory of a glutton who goes around a party, eating left-overs after party is over. He is not hungry. Similarly, the Torah (Devarim 25:18) testifies that when Amalek attacked the Jews, they went after the “weak ones.” Also, in Tehillim (137:7), King David prophecies that the Temple would be destroyed “to its foundation.” The Romans were not satisfied with the Temple burning – they wanted the Temple more than destroyed.

1It is interesting to note that Eisav is the ancestor of Amalek, and thus Haman.

Esther 6:14, Question 1. Why does the verse stress that the king’s servants arrived while Haman’s advisers were still speaking with him?

יד עוֹדָם מְדַבְּרִים עִמּוֹ וְסָרִיסֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ הִגִּיעוּ וַיַּבְהִלוּ לְהָבִיא אֶת–הָמָן אֶל–הַמִּשְׁתֶּה אֲשֶׁר–עָשְׂתָה אֶסְתֵּר

14. They were still speaking with him, and the eunuchs of the king arrived. And they rushed to bring Haman to the drinking party that Esther made.

• The M’nos HaLevi and Malbim write that the verse stresses that the king’s eunuchs arrived while Haman’s advisers were still speaking with him because this is an example of hashgacha pratis, H-Shem’s supervision of the world on a seemingly minor scale. As such, Haman did not get the sound advice from his advisers.
• R’ Eliezer Ashkenazi and the Malbim write that this is how Charvonah learned of the gallows (see Esther 7:9 below).
• The Dubno Maggid asks that, since Haman’s advisers were wise, why did they not consider this an opening for the Satan, based the Talmudic (Kesubos 8b) principle of al tiftach peh l’satan – not saying something that would give the Heavenly accuser an opportunity to do something unfavorable? He explains that they had planned to conclude their remarks with the good side, but the eunuchs’ sudden arrival interrupted them.
• The Degel Machaneh Efrayim adds that, as soon as the advisers questioned if Mordechai were Jewish, H-Shem sent Achashverosh’s servants as an answer. This is because He answers prayers even before they are uttered, as it says in Yeshaya (65:24) “od heim midabrim vaAni eshma” (“while they were speaking, and I heard”). All of this is possible because, unlimited by the dimension of time, H-Shem knows what we will do before we do it.

Esther 5:12, Question 1. What is the significance of the word “af” (“furthermore”)?

יב וַיֹּאמֶר הָמָן אַף לֹא–הֵבִיאָה אֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה עִם–הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל–הַמִּשְׁתֶּה אֲשֶׁר–עָשָׂתָה כִּי אִם–אוֹתִי וְגַם–לְמָחָר אֲנִי קָרוּא–לָהּ עִם־הַמֶּלֶךְ

12. And Haman said, “Furthermore, did not Esther the Queen bring me with the king to the drinking party that she made that was with her. And also for tomorrow, I will happen upon her with the king.

• The Midrash (Esther Rabbah 9:3) notes that four characters used the term, “af” and their downfalls are recorded with the word, “af”: the snake (Bireishis 3:1), the baker imprisoned with Yosef (Bireishis 40:16), Korach’s group of usurpers (Bamidbar 16:14), and Haman in our verse.
• Torah Temimah points out that the Midrash is implying that they should have used the word, “gam,” a more humble alternative to “af.”
• The Dubno Maggid teaches that they used this word because “af” also means anger. These were angry people, and their hostility aroused H-Shem’s wrath. Things don’t work out for angry people. He continues that all four of these are characters who want more than they have, and are discontent with what they have. “Af,” then means “furthermore,” as though unsatisfied with what is already present.

Esther 5:6, Question 2. Why does Achashverosh use the same nouns as before (5:3)?

• On a simple level, the Vilna Gaon explains that, as before (Esther 5:3), a request is personal, whereas a petition is for the needs of others. After all, it is the duty of a queen to petition her king.
• Similarly, the Maharal writes that a “request” is a natural desire. A “petition” is an above-average request.
• Rav Moshe Dovid Valle writes that “request” can be answered immediately, but a “petition” would require more time and effort.
• The Malbim writes that a “request” is just the act of asking for something. A “petition” is the providing of a reason for that request. A child can request from his father money with the petitioned purpose of acquiring some land. A father may want to hear both the plea and its reason, especially if he may want to provide both the money and the land.
• The Dubno Maggid writes that this was Achashverosh’s intent – to provide Esther with both her desired goal and its means.
• Perhaps, as suggested by class participant CL, Achashverosh was suspicious of Esther, and wanted to know the core intent of her request.

Esther 5:6, Question 1. Why does the verse specify that this is a drinking party?

ו וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לְאֶסְתֵּר בְּמִשְׁתֵּה הַיַּיִן מַה–שְּׁאֵלָתֵךְ וְיִנָּתֵן לָךְ וּמַה–בַּקָּשָׁתֵךְ עַד–חֲצִי הַמַּלְכוּת וְתֵעָשׂ

6. And the king said to Esther in the drinking party, “What is your request and it will be given you, and what is your petition? Until half of the kingdom, and it will be done.”

• The Ben Ish Chai writes that this is not the first wine party in Megillas Esther. In fact, after Haman and Achashverosh sign the decree meant to threaten Jewish existence, the verse (Esther 3:15) writes that they drank together. At that party something happened that this party will help to undo. Besides this, the verse there says that the city of Shushan was left bewildered. Among the reasons for this confusion is that the Jews were not privy to the content of the decree. They were left unclear as to the veracity of the inevitable rumors that this decree intended their demise. The Ben Ish Chai writes that this party, providing the tikkun to the previous party in the manner of “zeh l’umas zeh,” will leave no confusion.
• The Kotzker Rebbe writes that we are all supposed to remember that H-Shem listens to our requests not only when we are praying in a holy environment, but also when we are sitting at a table, eating and drinking in the measured way in which we are instructed. This is why H-Shem, the King in our verse tells Esther, who represents the Jews, that He will do what she requests. This is one reason why we request in Birkas HaMazon a number of things besides sustenance.
• The Dubno Maggid adds that King David unified his requests with his goals (see Tehillim 27:4). The Talmud (Avodah Zara 19a) says that one should do mitzvos for their own sake. This is what Dovid was doing. This is particularly relevant in the area of prayer because the Talmud (Brachos 20a) calls Yerushalayim “the hill towards which all mouths are directed.” We all have different mouths – or requests – but they are all for the same goal. Everything we want should be for the sake of our personal relationships with H-Shem.

Esther 3:5, Question 1. Why does Haman wait until he sees this to become angry?

ה וַיַּרְא הָמָן כִּי–אֵין מָרְדֳּכַי כֹּרֵעַ וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לוֹ וַיִּמָּלֵא הָמָן חֵמָה

5. And Haman saw that Mordechai was not kneeling and bowing to him, and Haman became filled with fury.

• As human beings, things often do not register until we actually see them for ourselves. In Acharei, after the death of two of Aaron’s sons, H-Shem teaches the laws of the Yom Kippur service. Explaining the Torah’s reason for relating these two events in his commentary there (Vayikra 16:1), Rashi brings a parable from a Midrash (Toras Kohanim, Parshas 1:3-4) that has one doctor ordering a patient to keep a certain regimen. Then, a second doctor comes in to order that patient to keep the very same regimen, but with the precaution that he should do so in order not to die as did so-and-so. This second doctor is more convincing because his using the story of so-and-so as a cautionary tale made the reality of the threat to his life more concrete for the patient.
• Malbim points out that Haman was observing Mordechai at this point. Apparently, hearing the words of these men caused Haman to pay attention to the behavior of the people around him. Perhaps we can say that he simply did not believe them. The Talmud (Kiddushin 70a) teaches a famous dictum: “kol haposel b’mumo posel” (“all who invalidate, in their own negative trait invalidate”). In other words, people judge others as reflections of their own characteristics. Being a dishonest, evil person himself, Haman thought everyone was dishonest, and simply would not accept the words of anybody.
• The Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:9) quotes Tehillim (69:24) “the eyes of the evil one are darkened.” What evil people see brings them to their ultimate destruction. The Midrash continues to bring numerous verses of evil people seeing something that causes their downfall. The opposite is true for the eyes of the righteous, because they raise them up. The Dubno Maggid asks why vision is the focus of this Midrash. That certainly cannot be the only difference between the good and the evil! He answers that we were all born spiritually equal, and evil people became such by looking at things in the wrong perspective, and thus making physical choices that negatively impacted their spirituality. In our verse, for example, Haman is upset that Mordechai is not bowing to him – whereas he would just as easily have focused on the positive fact that 99.99% of the population was bowing to him. Instead, he focused on the negative – that one person was not bowing to him. That negative focus is the trademark of the evil.