Esther 9:15, Question 1. What is the significance of the number of dead?

טו וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ הַיְּהוּדִיים [הַיְּהוּדִים] אֲשֶׁרבְּשׁוּשָׁן גַּם בְּיוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לְחֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר וַיַּהַרְגוּ בְשׁוּשָׁן שְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת אִישׁ וּבַבִּזּה לֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶתיָדָם

15. And the Yehudim who were in Shushan gathered also on the fourteenth of the month of Adar. And they killed in Shushan three hundred man. And in their spoils they did not send their hands.

  • The Targum Sheini indicates that the three hundred mentioned in this verse were all leaders among Amalek. It continues that Zeresh ran away (see # 521 above) together with 70 remaining sons of Haman, Shimshi was killed in battle, and Haman’s other sons were among the 300 killed. The point is that nobody left alive could positively be traced to Haman’s family. He was wiped out mida kineged mida, as he had planned to do to the Jews.
  • Maamar Mordechai writes that these 300 came to fight in order to avenge the death of Haman, their former leader.
  • On the other hand, Yad HaMelech explains that fewer people were killed because they were afraid of the Jews’ military prowess.
  • The Ginzei HaMelech notes that the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Megillah 1:5) states that Shushan Purim is fully celebrated as Purim on the fifteenth of Adar in cities that were walled from the days of Yehoshua. The Ginzei HaMelech explains that this is the reference point because in the days of Yehoshua (Yehoshua 11:20), too, H-Shem instilled a false sense of confidence into the minds of the Jews’ enemies. Similarly, these 300 enemies illogically felt emboldened to do battle against the Jews despite the obvious fallacy of their imagined success. The prophet (Yechezkiel 39:2-3) promises that a similar incident will happen in the time of Moshiach, bimheira biyameinu.
  • Bireishis Rabbasi (Bireishis 45:22) notes that these 300 enemies were killed in the merit of the 300 silver coins Yosef gave Binyamin.
Advertisements

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 5:10, Question 1. From what does Haman restrain himself?

י וַיִּתְאַפַּק הָמָן וַיָּבוֹא אֶלבֵּיתוֹ וַיִּשְׁלַח וַיָּבֵא אֶתאֹהֲבָיו וְאֶתזֶרֶשׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ

10. And Haman restrained himself. And he came to his house. And he sent for – and they came – his loved ones and Zeresh his wife.

  • Rashi writes that Haman restrains himself from taking revenge without the king’s permission.
  • Malbim says Haman would have gone back to the king to ask for the necessary permission.

Esther 2:21, Question 3. Why were Bigsan and Seresh angry?

  • There are numerous reasons given for Bigsan and Seresh’s anger. The Yalkut Shimoni (1053) says that Bigsan and Seresh previously had important positions, and were upset with Mordechai for seemingly usurping them. The Malbim sees this in the actual words of the verse. After all, the verse relates Mordechai’s “sitting at the king’s gate” to Bigsan and Seresh’s anger to point out that their anger was directly caused by his position.
  • The Talmud (Megillah 13b) says they were upset with the king and queen because they were tired at nights having to protect their door as they spent time together, much like Pharoah became upset with the baker and butler for small reasons (Bireishis 40:1).
  • Rav Elisha Gallico says they were upset that Mordechai was sitting at the king’s gate, deciding cases based on Jewish law. Bigsan and Seresh therefore saw it as a patriotic duty to kill the king (who was, by the way, not Persian) for his seeming betrayal of Persian law in promoting a Jew to this position.
  • The Me’am Loez writes that the two of them were relatives of Vashti, and waited this long period of time to avenge her death. Another opinion he brings is that they were upset that Achashverosh rejected Haman’s daughter during the search for a new queen, and Haman convinced them to join in a rebellion against the king. The Me’am Loez also quotes Yossipon that this was just one part of a much larger rebellion, and that these two wanted to kill Achashverosh to bring the king’s head to the Greeks, enemies of the Persians, and thereby ingratiate themselves to them.
  • The Malbim points out that, regardless of the reason, their motivation was petty. This parallels the story of Yosef mentioned in the above Talmud. The Malbim continues that, just as H-Shem can inspire a king (Pharoah) to be angry with his servants for no reason, so, too, can H-Shem inspire a servant (Bigsan and Seresh) to hate a king for no reason. Rav Dovid Feinstein asks why these two stories are being paralleled by the Talmud. He answers that the verse says “shnei” (“both”), equating the feelings of Bigsan and Seresh. In the natural order of things, this is impossible because no two people can have the same exact emotion from the same exact motivation in the same exact degree. This is yet one more indication that these events were led Divinely.