Esther 9:24, Question 4. Why does the verse say Haman intended to terrify the Yehudim?

  • In The Queen You Though You Knew, R’ David Fohrman notes how Haman used lots as a form of psychological warfare against the Jews.
  • R’ Dovid Feinstein emphasizes that Haman wanted the Jews to lose their faith in their ability to reach H-Shem, and therefore not repent. Like Acher in the Talmud (Chagiga 15a), one’s lack of confidence in one’s own relationship with H-Shem can be the greatest impediment to continued spiritual growth.
  • According to the Maharal, the verse mentions Haman’s terrorizing the Jews as a reference to his threatening our souls, and repeats Haman’s plan to annihilate the Jews as a reference to his threatening our physical bodies.
  • R’ Bonchek notes that terrorizing the Jews was not merely a convenient effect of the lottery – it was a goal of Haman’s. Not satisfied with murdering the Jews, Haman actually reveled in the psychological torture endured by the Jews once they learned of their impending destruction so many months (11!) in the future.

Esther 9:24, Question 2. Why does the verse call Haman an oppressor?

The Maharal explains that the verse calls Haman an oppressor because a tzorer (oppressor), in contrast to an oyev (enemy), hates someone for no reason. Like those anti-Semites who do not even know any Jews, oppressors do not care about the behavior – good or bad – of the object of their hate.

Esther 9:23, Question 1. Why does the verse use the singular v’kibel (“and accepted”) for what should be a plural verb?

כג וְקִבֵּל הַיְּהוּדִים אֵת אֲשֶׁרהֵחֵלּוּ לַֽעֲשׂוֹת וְאֵת אֲשֶׁרכָּתַב מָרְדֳּכַי אֲלֵיהֶם

23. And the Yehudim accepted that which they began to do and that which Mordechai wrote about them.

  • In a simple explanation, the Ibn Ezra writes that the verse uses the singular “v’kibel” (“and accepted”) in order to mirror Aramaic grammar.
  • However, the Vilna Gaon, Lekach Tov, M’nos HaLevi, Beis Aharon, R’ Moshe Dovid Valle, and the Maharal all write that the verb is in singular because all of the Jews were united.
  • The Zohar (II:113b) explains that the Jews trusted Moshe and accepted the Torah, and reaffirmed it at this point. Although Moshe was one man, the Jews’ re-acceptance of the Torah he taught became attached to him, thus necessitating a singular verb.

Esther 9:22, Question 2. To what sorrow does the verse refer?

  • The Ksav Sofer writes that the sorrow to which the verse refers was the sadness felt for Moshe’s death (Adar 7). This is because people at the time feared that the Torah would be forgotten. This is what the Talmud (Bava Basra 75b) implies by quoting the leaders of the time as saying, “Woe onto us that Moshe’s face is like the sun, and Yehoshua’s is like the moon!” They were, however, incorrect in their estimations, as Yehoshua proved to be a faithful conductor of Moshe’s teaching, as testified to in the Mishna (Avos 1:1).
  • Furthermore, the Jews’ re-acceptance of the Torah on Purim, as seen from the words kimu v’kiblu (“they established and accepted”) (Esther 9:27) demonstrates that the Torah of Moshe did not die (chas v’Shalom) with him.
  • Furthermore, the Maharal opines that since Adar is the end of the annual cycle of months, Adar would spell the end of the Jews.

Esther 9:22, Question 1. Why does the verse use the phrase “the month on which changed…” instead of explicitly using the name, Adar?

כב כַּיָּמִים אֲשֶׁרנָחוּ בָהֶם הַיְּהוּדִים מֵאוֹיְבֵיהֶם וְהַחֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר נֶהְפַּךְ לָהֶם מִיָּגוֹן לְשִׂמְחָה וּמֵאֵבֶל לְיוֹם טוֹב לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָם יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה וּמִשְׁלוֹחַ מָנוֹת אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיֹנִים

22. Like the days on which the Yehudim rested from their enemies and the month which was switched for them from sorrow to joy and from mourning to holiday to do on them days of feasting and joy and sending gifts each man to his fellow and gifts to the poverty-stricken.

  • According to the Talmud Yerushalmi (Megillah 1:4), the verse uses the phrase “the month on which changed…” instead of explicitly using the name, Adar, because if Purim theoretically fell on Shabbos (as was possible before Hillel the Younger developed our calendar system), not to mix the rabbinic holiday of Purim with the Torah-level obligations of Shabbos. Although it would not push off our obligations on that day, they would be somewhat compromised. To emphasize that the important aspect of this is the month when this event occurred, the verse does not state the fact that it is Adar.
  • Furthermore, the Talmud Yerushalmi (Megillah 1:1) also says that the entire month is fitting for Megillas Esther to be read publicly.
  • The Vilna Gaon notes this is why the Talmud (Taanis 29a) famously says that when the month of Adar (and specifically not Purim) comes in, we increase our joy.
  • The Ibn Ezra says that part of the reason for this is that sometimes Purim is not Adar, but rather in Adar Sheini. If the verse would have explicitly said Adar, Purim would have to be in the first Adar during leap years.
  • The Maharal emphasizes that Haman was so overjoyed when the lot fell on Adar because it is the last month of the Jewish year, and has the spiritual potential to be an end, in the negative sense.
  • R’ Chaim Kanievsky explains that the verse’s focus is on reversal because H-Shem can reverse anything, even those astrologically set “times.” After all, Haman’s choice of Adar as the month to attack the Jews was partially due to our supposed spiritual vulnerability.

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.

Esther 9:5, Question 2. Why does the verse mention different methods of killing?

  • According to the Midrash, the Jews killed the enemies inside their houses with the sword, but killed those who were outside with other methods. Those who were hiding needed to be brought out to the battlefield.
  • The Alshich explains that some gentiles openly threatened the Jews, while others harbored hate privately. Each group received a punishment commensurate with their behavior – some were wounded with the sword, some were killed, and yet others were destroyed together with their possessions.
  • The Maharal points out that hitting the enemies with the sword could potentially kill them, and once they are killed, they may need to be buried. But once they are destroyed, the enemies are gone.
  • R’ Moshe Katzenellenbogen writes that, in big cities, Jews could only kill bigger, more obvious enemies. In the smaller cities, the Jews stripped the weaker leaders of their power and humiliated them.
  • The Vilna Gaon explains these three methods were utilized at different stages of the battle. During the first stage, the Jews used swords, then graduated to burning those hiding out of the buildings, and finally arrested the residents.
  • The Ben Ish Chai points out that the rearranged initial letters (not counting the article letter vuv‘s) of makas cherev vi’hereg vi’avdal (“striking of the sword, and killed, and destroyed”) spell out the word emcheh (“I will destroy”). H-Shem (Shemos 17:14) uses this very word in His promise to eradicate Amalek, the nation responsible for this massacre. He also points out that these three expressions parallel Haman’s plan (Esther 3:13) to kill, destroy, and annihilate the Jews. The Jews merited to overcome this triple fate by fasting for three days (Esther 4:16).
  • R’ Dovid Feinstein writes that the destruction in this verse refers to the Jews destroyed the property of their enemies. This was done to demonstrate that their intent was not to conquer the wealth of others. Perhaps this was also intentionally contrary to Achasverosh’s order (Esther 4:11) in order to have the excuse that they could not take the possessions, since they were destroyed.