Esther 9:20, Question 1. What does Mordechai write?

כ וַיִּכְתֹּב מָרְדֳּכַי אֶתהַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיִּשְׁלַח סְפָרִים אֶלכָּלהַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּכָלמְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הַקְּרוֹבִים וְהָרְחוֹקִים

20. And Mordechai wrote these things and sent books to all of the Yehudim in all of the states of King Achashverosh, the near and the far.

  • Malbim says that what Mordechai wrote were the details of what occurred, since he was concerned that Jews outside of Shushan knew very little about the miraculous success of the Jews of Shushan.
  • According to Rashi, what Mordechai wrote is the content of Megillas Esther, exactly as it appears today.
  • The Ibn Ezra wrote down the reason for the previously mentioned joy.
  • Pirkei d’Rebbe Eliezer writes that Mordechai wrote this down as the head of the Sanhedrin.
  • The Vilna Gaon explains that this means that he wrote the Halachic details of how to properly commemorate Purim, with what can and cannot be done on this day.
  • R’ Dovid Feinstein emphasizes that Mordechai is making the changes for the holiday that the Jews had accepted upon themselves spontaneously.
  • R’ Elisha Gallico notes that it is so important to remember the real source of Purim, there are two readings of Megillas Esther every Purim. This is why Moredechai did not make Purim an actual Yom Tov in order to allow the Jews to perform the other mitzvos of the day.
  • The Oznei Yehoshua notes that if we had Purim without its rules, we would end up having an empty, meaningless holiday. As it stands, Purim is the epitome of giving in the Jewish community.
Advertisements

Esther 9:19, Question 1. What cities are included in the category of “unfortified cities” and why?

יט עַלכֵּן הַיְּהוּדִים הַפְּרָוזִים [הַפְּרָזִים] הַיּשְׁבִים בְּעָרֵי הַפְּרָזוֹת עֹשִׂים אֵת יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לְחֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר שִׂמְחָה וּמִשְׁתֶּה וְיוֹם טוֹב וּמִשְׁלוֹחַ מָנוֹת אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ

19. Therefore, the unfortified Yehudim in the unfortified cities made the fourteenth day of the month of Adar [a day of] joy, feasting, and holiday, and from sending gifts a man to his fellow.

  • According to Rashi, quoting the Talmud (Megillah 2b) “unfortified cities” are those that were not surrounded by walls in the days of Yehoshua.
  • The Ziv HaMinhagim writes that this definitely includes only Yerushalayim. There is a doubt regarding Ashdod, Ashkelon, Beit Sha’an, Gush Khaloav, Hebron, Haifa, Tiberias, Jaffa, Lod, Gaza, Acco, Safed, Ramleh, and Shechem.
  • R’ Ovadya of Bartenura explains that the times of Yehoshua are the reference point for the definition of walled cities in order to remind us of the root hatred of Amalek is their attacking us when we were leaving Mitrzrayim, when they battled Yehoshua.
  • The Sfas Emes adds that, by recalling Yerushalayim, we remember that the purpose of Purim was the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash.

Esther 9:13, Question 3. Why does Esther request that Haman’s sons be hanged, especially since they are already dead?

  • According to the Vilna Gaon, Esther requested that Haman’s sons be hanged to make it clear that the Jews were acting in accordance with the will of the king, avoiding any future persecution. By hanging Haman’s sons, it was sign to everyone that the king approved of the Jews’ actions.
  • Ohel Moshe writes that the people could have theoretically thought that Haman was hanged for attempting to kill Mordechai, the rescuer of the king. Esther wanted it to be very clear that, in actual fact, for generations that this was not some political soap opera, but rather H-Shem did all of this for the sake of the Jews.
  • R’ Yehonason Eibshutz similarly demonstrates that it is not from Achashverosh, but from H-Shem.
  • Interestingly, Yalkut Pisron Torah (273) writes that this group of sons were handed over to the Jews in the merit of the Jews’ keeping the mitzva (Devarim 22:6-7) of shiluach hakan (“chasing away the mother bird”).
  • In the Parsha of Titzaveh, which is usually read before Purim, in the first verse (Shemos 27:20), H-Shem commands the Jewish people to make the clothing of the kohanim using the words, “es bnei Yisroel v’yik’chu.” Rabbi Yosef Freedman points out that the last letters of those four words can be rearranged to spell talui (“hanging”) and the first letters of the same words can be rearranged to spell av v’yud (“the father and ten”).
  • R’ Moshe Dovid Valle notes that the ten sons of Haman, and Haman himself, hang on the tree together, and those eleven people parallel the eleven1 curses mentioned in the Torah (Devarim 27:15-26) reserved for those who do not keep H-Shem’s Law. Their hanging should remove from us these curses.
  • Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair (https://ohr.edu/purim/deeper_insights/3440) writes that these dead bodies needed to be hanged because the Talmud (Sanhedrin 97b) promises that Moshiach will come to the Jews even if they do not deserve him. This will occur after a wave of teshuva (“repentance”) takes us over after the evil decrees of a tyrant worse than Haman, himself.

1Added together, there are twelve curses in those verses, not eleven. See Rashi there (Devarim 27:26) that the twelfth and final of these curses is a general one that encompasses the entire Torah. Perhaps this is a reason for R’ Moshe Dovid Valle to have not included it in his calculation of the number of curses.

Esther 9:13, Question 1. Why does Esther ask for another day?

יג וַתֹּאמֶר אֶסְתֵּר אִםעַלהַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב יִנָּתֵן גַּםמָחָר לַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּשׁוּשָׁן לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדַת הַיּוֹם וְאֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת בְּנֵיהָמָן יִתְלוּ עַלהָעֵץ

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.

Esther 9:10, Question 3. Why did the Yehudim not take the spoils?

  • The Talmud (Megillah 7a) notes that one of the proofs that Megillas Esther was written with ruach hakodesh (see Introduction) is that no human writer could possibly know that the Jews did not take any spoils.
  • Rashi writes that the Jews had rights to the spoils, but decided to wave those rights, and give the spoils to the king in order to maintain friendly relations with the palace.
  • The Dena Pishra writes that they did not take spoils because they did not want others to think that the Jews’ motivation was financial.
  • In M’aarchei Lev, Rav Moshe Schwab writes that since this was the property of Amalek, it was forbidden to take, as was the case for Shaul (Shmuel 1 15:3). and this is why the Jews refrained from doing so here.
  • In fact, the Binyan Ariel and Nachal Eshkol write that the Jews’ self-control in this incident was a tikun for the sin of Shaul in sparing (Shmuel 1 15:9) Amalek’s property.
  • Interestingly, the M’lo HaOmer and Me’am Loez both note that the initial letters of the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth words of this verse, uvabeeza lo shalchu es (“and from their spoils they did not send”) can be rearranged to spell Shaul.
  • The Sfas Emes writes that the Jews took the spoils, but destroyed them in an effort to not benefit from the property.
  • However, R’ Yitzchak Yeruchem Diskin writes in Ohelim that Jews have an obligation to take the property of Amalek and destroy it, but did not do so here. The reason was that the Talmud (Megillah 16a) considers Haman to have been a slave. As such, he relinquished all rights to personal belongings. This includes his children. This also answers the question of how his grandchildren could study Torah in Bnei Brak if Amalek is never allowed to join the Jewish people. Such is not the case for his grandchildren because of his status of being a slave.
  • Megillas Seris adds another reason they did not take the spoils – they only had one day to kill Amalek, and they did not want to run the risk of missing the opportunity to fulfill this mitzva. In the course of performing a mitzva, they totally ignored anything ancillary to killing out their enemies.
  • The Gerrer Rebbe notes that matanos la’evyonim, the Halachic (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 695:4) injunction to donate to the poor on Purim is in honor of the impoverished Jews of the time not taking the spoils of their enemies, despite their needs.

Esther 9:10, Question 1. Why does the verse repeat that there were ten sons of Haman?

יעַשֶׂרֶת בְּנֵי הָמָן בֶּןהַמְּדָתָאצֹרֵר הַיְּהוּדִים הָרָגוּ וּבַבִּזָּהלֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶתיָדָם

10.The ten sons of Haman son of Hamdasa, tormentor of the Yehudim, were killed. And from their spoils they did not send their hands.

  • According to Rashi, the verse repeats that these were the ten sons of Haman because they were evil, and each tried to prevent the Jews from rebuilding the Beis HaMikdash. As governors and dignitaries, they did whatever they could to prevent the Jews from returning to the Holy Land.
  • This is accented by the Talmudic (Megillah 16b) custom is for the reader of Megillas Esther on Purim to read all of the names and “the ten sons of Haman” in our verse in one breath.
  • R’ Yosef Rosen of Rogochov explains the old custom (Orach Chaim 690) of the reader pausing at this point and congregation reading all of the names of Haman’s sons during the public reading, as well. He explains that ideally, everyone should be reading the Megillah on their own. Of course, we can all fulfill our obligation by hearing someone else’s reading, but how can we fulfill an obligation of “one breath” unless we read it in one breath, ourselves?

Esther 9:3, Question 1. To what does the phrase “that is the king’s” refer?

ג וְכָלשָׂרֵי הַמְּדִינוֹת וְהָאֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנִים וְהַפַּחוֹת וְעֹשֵׂי הַמְּלָאכָה אֲשֶׁר לַמֶּלֶךְ מְנַשְּׂאִים אֶתהַיְּהוּדִים כִּינָפַל פַּחַדמָרְדֳּכַי עֲלֵיהֶם

3. And all of the officers of the states and governor and lesser (governors) and the doers of the work of the king supported/honored the Yehudim because the fear of Mordechai fell on them.

  • Rashi explains that the officers “that are the king’s” are those who serve the needs of the king.
  • As Avigdor Bonchek points out, the verse is demonstrating that fulfilling the king’s needs is not only the job of these servants, but their very title and identity is in their attendance to their responsibilities.