Esther 9:25, Question 3. Why does the verse call this document a book?

  • The Ben Ish Chai writes that the book to which the verse refers is the Torah, which the Talmud (Chullin 139b) says alluded to the Purim story early on (Bireishis 3:11).
  • Similarly, the author of Yismach Moshe explains that everything went according to the book, the Torah. In other words, the Torah’s (Devorim 19:19) punishment for false witnesses (with some exceptions) is to the court to administer the punishment the false witnesses attempted to bring upon their intended victim. Just so, Haman’s hanging was just what he intended on Mordechai, his victim.
  • On a different note, the Vilna Gaon uses this phrase to demonstrate the importance of praying with a written text. One who speaks before the King of kings should do so with a book to avoid any inappropriate thoughts.

Esther 9:25, Question 1. Why does the verse not call Esther by name?

כה וּבְבֹאָהּ לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אָמַר עִםהַסֵּפֶר יָשׁוּב מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁרחָשַׁב עַלהַיְּהוּדִים עַלרֹאשׁוֹ וְתָלוּ אֹתוֹ וְאֶתבָּנָיו עַלהָעֵץ

25. And in her arriving before the king, he said with the book to return his evil thought that he thought on the Yehudim onto his head, and they hanged him and his sons on the tree.

  • According to Malbim, the subject of the verb uvivo’ah (usually translated as “in her arriving,” or “in its arriving”) is Haman’s original plan that had come before Achashverosh. His plan was an integral part of his demise. As he wrote earlier, the king did not want any part in a genocide. The rest of the verse then demonstrates that the king could not recall Haman’s original letters, and so was forced to hang Haman.
  • According to Rashi, however, the subject is Esther. The Maharal writes that Mordechai did not want to refer to her as a queen because Achashverosh had already deduced that she was actually Mordechai’s wife.
  • Rav Shmuel Hominer quotes the Talmud (Gittin 66a) that a sheid (“demon”) has a bivua (“shadow”), but not the shadow of a shadow, as people do. The similarity of this verse’s first word uvivoa (“and in her arriving”) to the Talmud’s name for a demon’s shadow is additional evidence for the idea that Esther sent out a sheid clone of herself in her dealings with Achashverosh.

Esther 9:24, Question 3. Why does the verse stress that Haman hates all the Yehudim?

  • The Alshich writes that by stressing that Haman hates all the Yehudim, Mordechai was making it amply clear that Haman’s hate was not just a personal vendetta against him. Indeed, as noted earlier, he hated all Jews.
  • In that sense, according to the Me’am Loez, Haman was worse than Pharaoh; whereas Haman (Esther 3:13) wanted to kill all of the Jews, Pharaoh (Shemos 1:16) wanted to kill male Jews only.
  • R’ Meir Simcha of Dvinsk notes that, historically, hatred of Jews escalates when they ignore their faith.
  • As the Rosh Yeshivah of Brisk, R’ Meshulam Dovid Soloveitchik, explains, Haman hated all Jews, regardless of the efforts of some to conform to his whims in an effort to befriend him, like those Jews who attended Achashverosh’s feast against the advice of their contemporary sages.

Esther 9:24, Question 1. Why does the verse repeat Haman’s lineage (see Esther 3:1)?

כד כִּי הָמָן בֶּןהַמְּדָתָא הָאֲגָגִי צֹרֵר כָּלהַיְּהוּדִים חָשַׁב עַלהַיְּהוּדִים לְאַבְּדָם וְהִפִּל פּוּר הוּא הַגּוֹרָל לְהֻמָּם וּלְאַבְּדָם

24. Because Haman son of Hamdasa the Agagite, oppressor of all the Yehudim thought regarding the Yehudim to annihilate them, and threw pur (which is a lot) to terrify and annihilate them.

According to Malbim, the verse repeats Haman’s lineage from Agag that it already mentioned (Esther 3:1) to emphasize that Haman, as a descendant of Amalek, hated all Jews – not just Mordechai.

Esther 9:23, Question 4. Why does the verse stress that the Yehudim also did what Mordechai writes about them?

  • The Vilna Gaon writes that the verse’s account of the Jews “doing what Mordechai wrote” refers to their giving charity and gifts.
  • Malbim explains that those Jews residing in the walled cities did not start to celebrate on their own, but only began when Mordechai’s decree went out.
  • M’nos HaLevi notes again that by writing it down, Mordechai retroactively transformed the Jews’ voluntary actions into the obligatory mitzvos of Purim.
  • R’ Dovid Feinstein adds that although the celebrations of Purim started on the Jews’ initiative, they submitted to the rule (and changes) of the sages.
  • The Dena Pishra writes that, at first, the Jews were upset with Mordechai for not bowing down to Haman (Esther 3:2), but now they recognized the wisdom behind Mordechai’s actions.
  • R’ Dovid Moshe Valle also points out that the Jews realized now that Mordechai had Ruach HaKodesh because he was able to summarize the events they witnessed into this multi-level text we have before us.

Esther 9:23, Question 2. Why does the verse stress that the Yehudim began doing this?

  • R’ Yehonason Eibshutz explains that what the Jews began doing was a continuation of what they started doing at Sinai. For this reason, although there is a prohibition (Devarim 13:1) to add mitzvos to the Torah, Mordechai had the authority to add the mitzvos of Purim in this case. The nation achieved atonement because they listened to Mordechai, and the sincerity of their re-acceptance of Torah allowed for the Torah to be new.
  • The Sfas Emes and Maamar Mordechai both note that in this verse, too, the Jews did before they learned, in the same fashion as their saying (Shemos 24:7) “naaseh v’nishmah” (“we will do and we will listen”) when they first accepted the Torah.

Esther 9:22, Question 5. What does the verse intend by “sending gifts,” and why?

  • 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.