Esther 8:8, Question 2. What is Achashverosh giving Esther and Mordechai permission to do?

  • In his commentary, R’ Meir Zlotowitz explains that Achashverosh gave permission to override, but not annul the previous decree. This was a dilemma for Mordechai and Esther to make Haman’s decree powerless without challenging its authority.
  • The Vilna Gaon and the Malbim wrote that Mordechai’s decree could only affect the vague, public copy of the original decree. It could not change the explicit, private memo that each governor received.
  • The Malbim adds that Achashverosh’s plan was for the second document to only clarify the first, vague decree.
  • The Ibn Ezra notes that Achashverosh could have come up with excuses for first document, like saying that the first document was the result of language confusion because Haman changed the wording of the original draft of the decree from “Jews can kill” to “Jews can be killed.”
  • Similarly, the Alshich writes that Achashverosh was saying that Haman left out a comma when he said (Esther 3:13) “l’abeid es kol HaYehudim” (“to kill all of the Yehudim”). A comma placed after kol could make the phrase appear as “to kill all, (by whom?) the Yehudim!”
Advertisements

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 29th 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 3:2, Question 1. Why does the verse mention two different actions?

ב וְכָלעַבְדֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁרבְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ כֹּרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לְהָמָן כִּיכֵן צִוָּהלוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ וּמָרְדֳּכַי לֹא יִכְרַע וְלֹא יִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה

2. And all the servants of the king who were at the king’s gate kneeled and bowed to Haman because this was what the king commanded him. And Mordechai will not kneel and will not bow.

  • Megillas Sefer gives two reasons for the verse’s use of both kneeling and bowing. One answer relates to different classes of people in Persian society at that time. People of the upper class would give a short bow when a person of high rank would pass, whereas a member of the lower class would have to prostrate to the floor. His second opinion relates to distance. When Haman was still far away, everybody would have to give a short bow. As he came closer, they would kneel further.
  • R’ Meir Zlotowitz in the Artscroll commentary on Megillas Esther (their first published work) suggests that these terms are reminiscent of the language of prayer. Indeed, in the “Aleinu” prayer, both terms “korim” (“kneel”) and “mishtachavim” (“bow”) appear in connection to the Jewish service of H-Shem. Haman wanted this religious behavior for the same reason Achashverosh earlier donned the clothing of the Kohen Gadol – they wanted to supplant the feelings and actions people had for G-d, and redirect it for themselves.