13. And Esther said, “If it is good for the king, give also tomorrow to the Yehudim who are in Shusham to do according to today’s law, and the sons of Haman hang on the tree.”
In a move reminiscent of her request (Esther 5:8) for a second party (also requesting it for “tomorrow!”), given the opportunity to ask of anything from the king, Esther asks for a seeming repeat of the previous day.
M’nos HaLevi explains that this would give the opportunity to kill more of the Jews’ enemies, avoiding the possibility of their getting revenge.
According to the Ben Ish Chai, Esther wanted two days to mirror the two days Haman planned in his decree – one day to kill off the people, and the second day to take their belongings.
The Megillas Sesarim notes that the Jewish court met in Shushan, as is evident from the fact that Mordechai (who was on the court) lived there, and the Talmud (Megillah 12a) says Achashverosh consulted the Jewish scholars regarding Vashti’s behavior. That being the case, the Shechina had some influence in Shushan since the Talmud (Brachos 6a) teaches that the Shechina resides where a Jewish court judges. Esther felt that the Shechina left as soon as Haman made the decree to kill the Jews. The second day was intended to allow for the Shechina to return.
The Ginzei HaMelech posits that Esther requested a second day to effect a tikkun for the mistake of Shaul in letting Agag live. He quotes the Pachad Yitzchak, who writes that there were previously two wars with Amalek, a defensive one when they attacked in the time of Moshe (Shemos 17:8-16), and an offensive battle in which H-Shem commanded their eradication in the time of Shaul (Shmuel 1 15:1-9). The first day symbolizes that first war because it was also defensive. The requested second day would represent the second, offensive, war. He adds that since the word, melech also represents H-Shem, Esther is asking the Creator for a future (as Rashi defines machar (“tomorrow”)) directive to destroy Amalek, in the days of Moshiach.
Rav Shlomo Brevda (zt”l) writes that Esther asked for a second day so that people would not say that Haman’s erred in his interpretation of astrology in choosing the 13th of Adar. Esther wanted it to be crystal clear that, although Haman’s astrological skills were perfectly accurate, H-Shem changed the decree to save the Jews.
1. And it was in the third day, and Esther dressed in royalty. And she stood in the courtyard of the inner house of the king, facing the house of the king. And the king was sitting on the seat of his royalty in the house of royalty facing the opening of the house.
M’nos HaLevi writes that Esther usually avoided wearing royal garb. From her humility and modesty, she did not want to wear any clothing that would demonstrate her accepting her role as queen. The Talmud (Megillah 15a) points out that the verse seems to be missing the word, “clothing.” Accordingly, Esther wore “royalty” not in the physical sense, but in the sense of her enveloping herself in the Holy Spirit – Ruach HaKodesh.
Iyun Yaakov wonders why this would occur now. After all, Esther is a prophetess, and one would imagine she was constantly connected to H-Shem’s Messages. He answers that this was a time of great hester Panim, of H-Shem hiding His Face, as it were. In response to the Talmud’s famous attempt to find the story of Esther alluded to in the Torah, the Talmud (Chulin 139b) quotes the verse “v’Anochi hastir astir Panai bayom hahu” (“And I will surely hide My Face from them on that day”) (Devarim 31:18). Since this was a time of great Divine concealment, and there was great doubt in the world, the Jews attempted to change things by fasting for three days, and praying to H-Shem, and managed to merit their prophetess receiving the Divine Presence.
The Vilna Gaon adds that there is a concept that the Divine Spirit only rests upon a person whose body is “broken down.” This means someone who wants spiritual growth needs to realize that one’s soul is more important than one’s body.
The Midrash (Bireishis Rabbah 56:1) writes that the royalty referred to here is the royalty of Esther’s father’s house, being descendant from King Shaul. Preparing for her disobeying a royal edict to meet the king, she took with her the dignity and air of monarchy she inherited from her ancestry. This idea certainly supports the contention of the Malbim and M’nos HaLevi that Esther’s wearing “royalty” simply meant that she seemed regal to casual observers.
R’ Shlomo Kluger in Ma’amar Mordechai, says that Esther had been forced to be the queen, and at this point, she owned up to that responsibility. He points out that, from this verse and onwards, Esther is consistently called Queen Esther by the authors of Megillas Esther.
Pachad Yitzchak notes that this verse indicates that Esther became the queen of the Jewish people. Interestingly, the Jews can only fulfill the command to eradicate Amalek when they have a sovereign ruler (Talmud, Sanhedrin 20a), and Esther took on that role to enable this.
Rabbi Eliezer Ginzburg asks how she was given authority to be the queen. The Shem M’Shmuel (on Devarim 33:19) writes that the main function of a Jewish king or queen is to unite the Jewish people. Therefore, by enveloping herself in an intense love for the Jews, she took on the role of royalty, becoming what a royal is supposed to be.
Rav Ginzburg also quotes the Nefesh HaChaim (3:12) that even if there are other spiritual forces in the world, they will have no affect on a person who totally submits oneself to H-Shem’s sovereignty. There are numerous stories concerning the Rav of Brisk, Rav Yitzchak Soloveitchik, whose concentrating on this idea of “ein od milVado” (“there is nothing beside Him”) from the Nefesh HaChaim at different times rescued him from Russian conscription and Nazi persecution. Accordingly, this is the idea of royalty with which Esther adorned herself, making her impervious to any harm.
The Pachad Yitzchak notes that this is a rare example of Jewish royalty wearing non-Jewish garments, and this may be yet another reason for the custom of wearing masks and disguises on Purim.
Rashi’s simple explanation is that Mordechai thinks Esther believes she will be safe in the palace on the day of the massacre. Rabbi Avigdor Bonchek, however, sees in Rashi’s words an irony that Esther’s safety can only be guaranteed through self-sacrifice.
The Vilna Gaon writes that Mordechai thought that Esther was under the impression that her volunteering herself to Achashverosh was one of the carnal sins for which one should sacrifice one’s life rather than sin, even for the sake of others.
The Sfas Emes points out that the Halacha (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 157:1) requires a city under siege to refuse to give up any resident requested for execution by the attacking army. This is the case if this oppressive army does not specify their victim. However, if they they want a specific person, the community must give that person up to save themselves, since that person is threatened either way. This is only true when that person is threatened along with everyone else. Mordechai thinks Esther considers herself to be in this latter situation, safely tucked away in the palace.
R’ Dovid Feinstein writes that Mordechai was saying that H-Shem will save His people, as He always does. However, if Esther acts selfishly, she will not be among the other Jews.
Similarly, due to the fact that Mordechai mentions the king’s palace, and every mention of the word “king” is a reference to H-Shem, R’ Dovid Moshe Valle adds that the King can reach anywhere.
R’ Elisha Gallico notes that, in fact, Esther was actually in more danger staying in the palace. The reason for this, explains the Maharal, is that considering Achashverosh’s virulent hate for the Jews, Esther is safer away from the man who signed the edict to annihilate her nation. The Maharal compares this to living inside a basket with a snake. This is even moreso the case if Esther thinks of herself as an individual, and thus lacking the power of the united nation.
The Alshich says that, in Mordechai’s estimation, the root of Esther’s mission was to fix King Shaul’s error of allowing Agag to live.
According to Ginzei HaMelech, this is the reason why Mordechai is giving Esther such strong rebuke here; Esther needs to know that the only reason she was in that position was for this goal. Furthermore, Ginzei HaMelech points out that Torah is honest. Here, since Megillas Esther was written by Esther, herself, she nevertheless did not censor out this scene in which she looks weak. The Ginzei HaMelech furthermore adds that this case it was not appropriate to stay private.
R’ Menachem Ziemba was asked before the Warsaw ghetto uprising if the Chassidim should be involved in the fighting. He answered that it is indeed a mitzvah to give up one’s life when given the choice between death or their faith. When given no such choice, it is a mitzvah to fight.
According to the Kisei Shlomo, Mordechai was telling Esther she was responsible for Hasach’s death, and thus more invested now in the rescue of the Jews.
Rav Yitzchak Hutner writes in Pachad Ytizchak that when Person A needs something, and decides to also pray for Person B who also needs that, this makes Person A’s prayer more effective (Talmud, Baba Kama 92a). Rav Hutner explains that this principle works because prayer is stronger if it is performed with the whole heart (Talmud, Sotah 5b), meaning that it is more strongly felt. Therefore, Mordechai is telling Esther that she needs the same rescue as the Jews. In other words, she was already intent on praying for the Jews; what Mordechai wanted Esther to realize was that she was in the same precarious situation. Realizing that she also needs H-Shem to rescue her would cause Esther to feel that prayer with her whole heart, making her prayer stronger, and thus more effective.
10. And the king removed his ring from his hand and gave it to Haman son of Hamdasa the Aggagite, enemy of the Yehudim.
According to M’nos HaLevi, the significance of Achashverosh giving Haman his ring is a sign that he consents to an agreement with Haman.
The Midrash here (Esther Rabbah 7:20) that Achashverosh hates the Jews more than Haman. After all, “the custom of the world is for the buyer to give a pledge to the seller. But here, the seller [Achashverosh] is giving the pledge [the ring].”
The Alshich writes therefore, that this giving of the ring is a legal transaction indicating an acceptance of Haman’s offer, an amount Haman is not likely to be carrying with him.
The Megillas Sesarim writes the ring means Achashverosh is giving Haman full authority to do anything he likes.
The Talmud (Megillah 14a) writes that the removal of the ring was stronger than forty prophets and seven prophetesses. None of them could encourage the Jews to repent as much as this one act. The Jews seemingly do not repent en mass until their very survival is threatened. R’ Mendel Weinbach says that this act is particularly frightening for the Jews because they know Achashverosh is capricious, and is famous for changing his mind. Once he gives authority to Haman, though, the Jews realize that they are in serious danger.
The Bircas Chaim asks why, when Mordechai is elevated to Haman’s position (Esther 8:2), does Achashverosh immediately give Mordechai his ring? In contrast with Mordechai at that point, Achashverosh does not trust Haman. However, now that Haman is willing to give this great amount of silver to the government, Achashverosh is under the mistaken impression that he is patriotic.
In Pachad Yitzchak, Rav Yitzchak Hutner wonders why the Talmud calls this incident the “removal of the ring” when it is Haman’s desire to kill the Jews which should be the focus. In response, he writes that whenever the descendants of Eisav or Yaakov prosper, the descendants of the other fall (see Rashi to Bereishis 25:23). Therefore, Achashverosh’s raising up of Haman necessitates a corresponding lessening of the Jews in the esteem of the king.
Megillas Sesarim writes that the word “pur,” coming from the foreign language of the Persian nation that had dominion over the Jews, has a negative connotation. Had the verse used the word “goral,” it would have had a positive connotation – especially with its allusions to the Yom Kippur service. Since the lot decided when the ideal time to massacre the Jews, the verse uses the Persian word.
On the other hand, since the lots also helped precipitate Haman’s downfall, the verse uses the Hebrew word, as well. In a deeper answer, the Pachad Yitzchak writes that the Jewish people always had two kinds of adversaries in their history – the four nations in which they were exiled, and the seven Canaanite nations they had to eject upon entry to the Holy Land. Therefore, he writes, “pur” is translated to emphasize the dual nature of Haman, in that he was both (as an Amalekite) from the seven nations in Israel and (as a Persian officer) from the four nations of exile.
This verse is quoted throughout Rabbinic literature – including the Talmud (Chulin 104b), the Mishnah (Avos 6:6), and Tanna D’vei Eliyahu – as proof of the importance of quoting one’s sources. It says, “one who says a thing in the name of the speaker brings redemption to the world.” This is not mere intellectual honesty, and there must be a deeper relationship between quoting in a speaker’s name and redeeming the world.
The Imrei Emes writes that when you give Torah, you get Torah back. When you teach in somebody else’s name, you receive that person’s Torah in return.
Rav Shimon Schwab quotes the Talmud (Yevamos 97a) that when you quote the words of a Torah scholar, his lips move in the grave. This leads to redemption because, as the Midrash (Bireishis Rabbah 98) says, when two people say the same thing, that is the end of argument. Symbolically, when you and that scholar are saying the same thing, that is the definition of the end to argument. As class participant CL pointed out, disunity destroyed the Beis HaMikdash, and it shall be rebuilt (speedily, in our time) through the unity Jews gain from sharing in the Torah of those who came before us.
The Maharal in Derech Chaim points out that the root of an original thought comes from the soul of the person saying it. By repeating somebody else’s original thought, you are replanting the root back from where it came. That, too, is redemption because the definition of redemption is putting things back to their ideal state.
In Pachad Yitzchak, Rav Yitzchak Hutner quotes the Talmud’s (Brachos 17a) prayer that we want to do H-Shem’s Will, but exile restrains us. Rav Hutner continues that, on a personal level, exile means when a soul cannot grow and feels restrained. Therefore, redemption is bringing action back into the soul’s potential. By reporting Mordechai’s words – which are all Torah – Esther brings about the redemption of the Purim story, and eventually leads to the building of the Second Temple.
If the intention of the verse is to indicate Achashverosh’s drunkenness, there are simpler ways to say so. According to the Alshich, Achashverosh indeed was not drunk, but simply acting light-headed.
On a deeper, more allegorical level, Rav Yitzchak Hutner (Pachad Yitzchak on Purim) quotes the idea that a mention of a “king” in Megillas Esther also indicates the King of Kings, The Holy One (see our previous blogs regarding this). If so, H-Shem’s “heart” was in a positive spirit because of the distinct behavior of His chosen people.
The Midrash (Esther Rabba 3:11) states that there is no true gratification amongst the nations of the world. Therefore, Achashverosh’s heart wasn’t really gratified with wine, but only seemingly so. In Ohr Chadash, the Maharal asks how this is possible. Do idolators really never experience gratification and joy? It certainly seems they do! He responds that complete gratification only comes from spiritual pleasure, and that can only be achieved through means available only to the spiritual people. Any other gratification is physical and does not have permanence. He quotes as proof the verse in Tehillim (31:20) that promises endless gratification to those who live their lives righteously. As Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch points out in his commentary on that verse, this is a reward in this world, as opposed to the stereotypical suffering tzaddik. In fact, several recent studies demonstrate that people without religion have higher stress levels (read: ungratified) than those following in the ways of Torah (http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/article/1119541–you-docs-having-faith-is-good-for-bodies-and-souls).