- According to Malbim, the Jews provided Achashverosh with a count of the dead in order to demonstrate to the king that the very existence of these 500 major enemies of the Jews implied the existence of countless more minor enemies.
- The Yad HaMelech sees in this accounting the Jews’ report to the king of how many spoils were not touched.
- The Maamar Mordechai points out that Achashverosh – having risen to the top of Persian society as a military leader – would have enjoyed hearing these numbers of military casualties and exploits.
- It is the opinion of Rav Galico, however, that the fatalities were reported to Achashverosh by the enemies of the Jews in order to anger Achashverosh. It was yet another minor miracle that he did not become upset.
- The Yosef Lekach writes that the verse uses the word ish to indicate that the dead enemies were important people.
- Similarly, the Targum explains that all of these 500 were Amalek dignitaries.
- Rav Eliezer of Garmiza adds that Haman’s sons led the battles, and were therefore killed first.
- On the other hand, Ma’amar Mordechai writes that his sons were not killed at this point. Rather, they were preserved for later (see Esther 9:7-9).
- Megillas Sesarim writes that ish in in the singular because, despite their greatness, they were easily mowed down as if they were but one man.
- The Rema in Machir Yayin writes that they are united in their deaths because they were united in one purpose.
- Considering the Jews’ natural dislike of violence, this verse’s description that “they did to their enemies as they wanted,” seemingly without regard for the rules of engagement, appears strangely out of character.
- Rav Yechezkiel Levenstein writes that the verse can be read as “they, the Jews, did to their enemies as they – the enemies – wanted,” or that they treated them with respect rather than killed them.
- In a similar reading, the Alshich and the Vilna Gaon suggest that the verse can be read as “they did to their enemies as they – the enemies – wanted to do to them.”
- Also, the Yosef Lekach writes that the Jews took the spoils in the small towns because “they, the Jews, did to their enemies as they (the Jews) wanted,” and not as Mordechai wanted.
The Rishon L’Tzion suggests from a verse in the Torah (Shemos 17:16) that enemies always means the nation of Amalek.
The Vilna Gaon says that an oyev (“enemy”) is someone who wants to commit harm, whereas a soneh (“hater”) is someone who rejoices in others’ misfortune and harm. In this case, the redemption was so complete, that both were attacked.
- Perhaps mi’oiveihem (“from their enemies”) is spelled deficiently without a letter vuv because the gematria (40+1+10+2+10+5+40=108) is the same as the word chamas (“corruption”) (8+40+60=108) and limabul (“to a flood”) (30+40+2+6+30=108). In the story of Noach, the Torah (Bireishis 6:13) tells us that when the world became filled with chamas, H-Shem decided to punish it with a flood. The hatred that comes along with creating enemies necessitates a strong Heavenly response to put the world back in the proper order.
In Ma’aseh Chemed, the Steipler Gaon writes that the letters do not explicitly name the Jews’ enemies in contrast to Haman’s letter (Esther 3:13). There, Haman was concerned that some people might misinterpret his decree to target some other disliked minority. Therefore, he spelled out clearly who the enemies were. By being specific, the ring-leaders could start making plans, stockpiling weapons, collecting Jewish addresses, etc. However, by performing these acts, the Jews’ enemies made themselves conspicuous to the Jews. For this reason, the purported enemies in this verse could be vague because Jews knew exactly who they were already. How complete and precise is H-Shem’s justice! Haman and his cohorts dug their own graves.