Esther 9:27, Question 1. Why does the verse mention establishing before accepting?

כז קִיְּמוּ וְקִבְּלֻ הַיְּהוּדִים ׀ עֲלֵיהֶם ׀ וְעַל–זַרְעָם וְעַל כָּל–הַנִּלְוִים עֲלֵיהֶם וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר לִהְיוֹת עֹשִׂים אֵת שְׁנֵי הַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה כִּכְתָבָם וְכִזְמַנָּם בְּכָל–שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה

27. The Yehudim established and accepted on themselves and on their seed and on all who join them, and not to pass over the being of having done these two days as their writing and as their times each and every year.

• On a simple level, the Maharal writes that the verse mentions establishing before accepting because the Jews established in the year following the Purim story that which they had already accepted in the year of the event.
• In his commentary on the Torah (Bireishis 6:18), the Ramban explains this phrasing to indicate that the Jews accepted upon themselves and their descendants for perpetuity that which they had already placed upon themselves previously.
• In a later comment on the Torah (Devorim 27:26), however, the Ramban adds that this verse means that the Jews accepted that Torah and all of her mitzvos are true.
• The Talmud (Shevuos 39a) quotes the verse in the Torah (Devorim 29:13-14) in which H-Shem establishes a covenant with all of the Jews at that time, and forever. The Talmud then uses the present verse’s phrase of “kimu v’kiblu” (“they established and accepted”) to explain how we could know that future generations of Jews accepted to take on any future, additional mitzvos.
• The Talmud (Megilla 7a, Makkos 23b) teaches that the Heavenly court established above what was accepted by the Jews below.
  • R’ Shmuel Aharon Rubin explains that this means that Heaven confirmed the earthly ruling – like witnesses – giving it legitimacy.
  • Kol Eliyahu notes that this is the idea behind the Talmud’s (Megilla 7a) proof that Megillas Esther is written with Ruach HaKodesh (see Introduction). Otherwise, how would Mordechai and Esther have known that Heaven accepted the Jews’ pronouncement?
• The Talmud (Shabbos 88a) tells the story of the Jews’ accepting the Torah at Har Sinai. Once they accepted the Torah with the words (Shemos 24:7) “naaseh v’nishmah” (“we will do and we will listen”), H-Shem lifted a mountain over them, and threatened to drop it over them if they would not accept the Torah. What was the reason for this if they had just done exactly that?
  • Tosfos answers that the Jews accepted the Written Torah with complete enthusiasm, but not the Oral Torah. They re-accepted the Torah in the conclusion of Megillas Esther, when the verse (Esther 9:27) writes “kimu v’kiblu” (“they established accepted”). Many commentators are bothered by the implied coercion in this tactic.
  • Firstly, Rashi (on the Talmud there) notes that the coercion was intended for the Jews to use as defense in the future to lessen any punishment. A Jew thereby always has a ready excuse in the Heavenly court that he never accepted the Torah’s responsibilities willingly.
  • The Sfas Emes notes that the word order parallels “naaseh v’nishmah” (“we will do and we will listen”) (Shemos 24:7). Tosfos explains that, after accepting the Torah, the Jews got scared by the fires around the mountain, and back-paddled, taking back their promise.
  • The Maharal (Tiferes Yisroel 32) argues on Tosfos, saying that the message H-Shem imparted on the Jewish people for the rest of history by holding the mountain over them was that the Torah was not simply a subject that they could accept or not, at their whim – rather, the entire world was only made for the purpose of our serving the Torah, and rejecting it (chas v’Shalom) was not a viable option within the scope of our prerogative. Their re-acceptance in the time of Purim, therefore, was an act of consenting to these terms. The Maharal quotes the Midrash (Tanchuma, Noach 3) that the Jews at Mt. Sinai only accepted the Written Law. This did not include the effort, discipline, study, and observance of the Oral Law. The Maharal continues that coercion was necessary to show the world that accepting the Torah was not just a nice gesture to voluntary accept, but a necessary part of life for the world’s continued existence.
  • However, the Ramban and the Ran learn this passage as H-Shem threatening the Jews that if they do not accept the Torah, they would not receive Eretz Yisroel. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 105a) quotes the prophet (Yechezkiel 20:32) that “what comes to your mind shall definitely not occur; in that which you say, ‘We will be like the nations, like the families of the lands, to serve wood and stone.’” The Talmud explains that – like the other nations of the world – once the Jews were no longer in their land, they felt that they were no longer responsible to keep Torah. They realized the error of this philosophy after the Purim miracle, leading to their re-acceptance of the Torah.
  • The Ritva points out that such is just the weak argument of the heretic. The Talmud’s statement means that even if there was coercion, it was re-accepted on Purim.
  • In the “Drashos” section of Oneg Yom Tov, the author writes that just as a marriage could theoretically be annulled by a precondition, so too one could argue that the Jews accepted the Torah at Sinai under the precondition of receiving the land of Israel. This precondition was annulled by the Jews’ renewed acceptance in Persia.
  • The Torah Temimah and the Rayach Dodayim both point out that the word order of “established and accepted” implies that one should first accept, and only then fulfill the Torah.
  • The Chofetz Chaim writes that the generation of the desert was not reluctant to accept the Torah, but was merely concerned about the difficulties to be endured by future generations of Jews keeping the Torah through their future exiles. They knew that the Torah’s many mitzvos would effectively alienate us from our surrounding neighbors. Purim proves that the Jews can keep the Torah even in the most hostile of environments. As the Sages say, the Torah protects us and rescues us. The Torah is not counterproductive to our survival in exile – quite the opposite; the Torah is our key to continued existence.
  • The Dubno Maggid quotes a Talmudic (Yerushalmi Megilla 1:5) debate between H-Shem and the gentile nations. The nations ask, “why did You not lift mountain over our heads? We would have accepted the Torah, too!” In response, the Dubno Maggid tells a parable about two fathers who come to a doctor with their two sons. Both boys refuse to eat, the first one being sick, and the other who is weaning. The doctor tells the father of the sick boy to keep his son away from food and that will force him to eat on his own when he becomes hungry. The doctor tells the father of the weaning boy to force open the boy’s mouth, and to stuff the most delicious foods into it. When the fathers showed surprise regarding the two different suggestions for seemingly the same ailment, the doctor explained that the sick child’s body is repulsed by food, and he needs to stay away from food that can otherwise cause him harm. The weaning child, however, has never had solid food before, and must be force-feed in order to taste food’s sweetness. Like the sick boy, H-Shem knew that the that the gentiles would not appreciate Torah anyway, so He kept it away from them. Furthermore, similar to a weaning boy, the Jewish people were simply unaccustomed to Torah, and needed to be somewhat forced into accepting it. After experiencing its sweetness, the Jews would naturally choose to continue on the right path.
  • In the view of the Sfas Emes, during the first acceptance, the Jews only accepted the Torah verbally – not in hearts, as is hinted to by our singer (Tehillim 78:36) “they tried to trick Him with their mouths.” The situation was very different in Persia, where their hearts were completely invested. He also notes that, just like first acceptance followed the defeat of Amalek, so too in Persia.
  • R’ Yisroel Simcha Schorr notes that, interestingly, the Mishna’s three day allowance to publicly read Megillas Esther for Purim (Megilla 1:1) parallel the three days of preparation the Jews needed to receive the Torah.
  • Perhaps all of this is why, as R’ Dovid Feinstein writes, anyone who wants to join Jews must first accept Purim.
  • Rav Shach writes in Mach’shavos Mussar that, since Purim is an appropriate time to re-accept the Torah, it should be celebrated with learning – not drunken revelry.
  • R’ Henoch Leibowitz notes that at the acceptance of the Torah at Sinai, since so much time (49 days) passed since miracles in Mitzrayim, it was difficult for person to wake oneself up.
  • On these points, Tefillas Chana says that the Jews accepted the Torah because they realized that everything, even nature, is from H-Shem.
  • R’ Yaakov Kaminetsky explains the significance of this acceptance of Torah. Miracles are, after all, easy to accept as G-dly, but seeing H-Shem’s guiding Hand in nature leaves a far more lasting impression.

Esther 6:14, Question 3. Why are Achashverosh’s eunuchs rushing Haman?

• According to the Talmud (Megillah 16a) Achashverosh’s eunuchs rushed Haman in a state of confusion.
• The Torah Temimah explains that they rushed Haman against his will to indicate the king’s lack of respect for him.
• The Maamar Mordechai quotes the Yalkut Shimoni that Esther sent these servants.
• Alshich writes that, aside from most of the adviser’s dislike of Haman, everyone in the palace knew that Haman was on the outs with the king, effectively blacklisting him.
• In one comment, the M’nos HaLevi writes that Haman was rushed in order to not have the chance to wash off his daughter’s excrement from his head.
• In another comment, he writes that if the servants had not rushed, Haman would have hanged himself.
• Similarly, the Vilna Gaon writes that Haman would have used his added time to take down the gallows. Since the gallows will be needed for him, the eunuchs were rushed.
• Also, Dena Pishra writes that Haman would have run to his governor sons, and they would begin the rebellion they were planning. On that note, the M’nos HaLevi points out that an opinion in the Talmud (Pesachim 22b, Kiddushin 57a) interprets any appearance of the word es to include something to a given statement. Therefore, he interprets this verse’s containing an es in “es Haman” to include Haman’s sons.
• The M’nos HaLevi also notes that the word “vayavhilu” (“and they rushed”) is written without a letter yud between the hey and lamed. The missing yud has a gematria of ten, implying Haman’s ten sons.
• Perhaps the fact that the addition of the ten would make the gematria of vayavhilu (6+10+2+5+10+30+6=69) the same as hadas (“willow”) (5+4+60=69) fits well with the above-cited opinion from Yalkut Shimoni that it was Esther/Hadassah who sent these eunuchs.
• The Maharal explains another reason for their rushing. The organic process of nature is slow. A seed placed in the ground does not turn into a plant immediately. Anything that comes directly from H-Shem is sudden, and without preparation. The Shelah quotes from the Talmud (Brachos 9b) that kings eat their main meals in the morning. These servants are therefore rushing Haman to get to Achashverosh’s meal on time. This is the reason for his Halachic position (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 695:2, Mishnah Berurah ibid., sub-paragraph 9) that a Purim seudah should ideally be held in the morning hours.
• R’ Moshe Rephael Luria quotes the Midrash (Bireishis Rabba 2:4) which discusses how the second verse in the Torah (Bireishis 1:2) alludes to all four exiles of the Jewish people. The Midrash parallels that verse’s use of the word vavohu (“emptiness”) with this verse’s use of the word vayavhilu.
• Another Midrash (Eicha Rabba 2:11) writes that this verse is a fulfillment of the verse from the Song at the Sea (Shemos 15:15) “az nivhalu alufei Edom” (“then the princes of Edom will tremble”). After all, Haman – a descendant of Edom – is trembling and confused from being rushed. The trembling of our enemies will come with our sudden escape from their exile, bimheira biyameinu.

Esther 6:1, Question 2. Why does the verse describe the king’s sleep as “shaken?”

• Me’am Loez writes that this was the first time Achashverosh felt anything like insomnia, and he was therefore greatly concerned. Since this strange, out of the ordinary event transpires in this verse, perhaps this is the reason for the custom (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 690:15, Mishnah Berurah 690:52) to read this verse in a unique tune¹.
• The Midrash writes that Achashverosh had trouble sleeping because he was afraid Haman would try to kill him.
• R’ Rephael Shapiro of Volozhin wonders why the crux of the Purim miracle hangs on this seeming lie; after all, Haman was not planning on killing the king at this point. He answers that Achashverosh saw in his dream that Haman wanted to kill Esther’s husband. What he did not know was that Esther’s actual husband was not Achashverosh, but Mordechai.
• Since every reference to the “king” is really a reference to the King of Kings – H-Shem – the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 10:1) continues that H-Shem was “awakened” from His throne of Glory. How could H-Shem, who neither sleeps nor slumbers (Tehillim 121:4) have been sleeping? The Midrash explains that H-Shem can be said to be “sleeping” when the Jews are not living up to the standard set for them, as it says elsewhere in Tehillim (78:65). Torah Temimah explains that H-Shem ignores our needs sometimes, and only prayer and repentance can “awaken” Him.
• The Talmud (Megillah 15b) cites an argument about which king’s sleep was disturbed. The first opinion says it was H-Shem’s “sleep.” The second opinion is that the sleep of both the upper world and the lower world was disturbed. The third opinion is that it was Achashverosh’s sleep, and that it was due to his concern over the nature of the relationship between Esther and Haman, as she had intended by inviting Haman to her feast (see below). Achashverosh thus becomes concerned that nobody seems to be saving him.
• Interestingly, Rashi uncharacteristically quotes both the miraculous and natural interpretations of this verse. R’ Avigdor Bonchek writes that Rashi does so to emphasize that the main theme of Megillas Esther is that the true, miraculous nature of things is constantly concealed within seemingly everyday events. Maharal points out that this can be seen in the verse’s choice of calling Him/him “king” without mentioning Achashverosh’s name. If the verse is discussing H-Shem, it is fitting to call Him King. If the verse is discussing Achashverosh, it must be that he was concerned about kingly, political affairs.
• Furthermore, Maharsha notes that any instant in TaNaCh in which someone’s sleep is disturbed, the next verse explains the reason. For example, when Yaakov had a dream about the ladder, the next verse (Bireishis 28:10) explains why. Also, when Pharoah had his prophetic, confusing dreams about cows, the next verse (Bireishis 41:1) explains the reason. This verse’s lack of explanation leads one to conclude that something else is going on – namely, H-Shem’s “sleep” is also being “disturbed.”
• Based on the fact that the root of “nadidah” (“shaking”) is “nada,” R’ Mendel Weinbach points out that the verse’s use of two letter daleds indicates that there were two disturbances – one in the Heavens and one on Earth. The Midrash Abba Gurion writes that the angel, Gavriel, kept Achashverosh awake telling him, “do good for the one who did good to you.”
• The Ben Ish Chai writes that “nadidah” can be read as “nadad Hey,” or “H-Shem Stirred.” He writes it can also be read as “fifty (gematria of the letter nun) dadah.” Since “dadah” can be seen as the root of “edadeim” (“movement”) in Tehillim (42:5), Ben Ish Chai writes that fifty moved Achashverosh. Specifically, he quotes the Ari Z”l that the first verse in Shema contains twenty-five letters. Since we typically say Shema twice every evening and twice every morning, these fifty letters (twenty-five letters repeated) Mordechai was saying came to protect Mordechai. These fifty letters saved Mordechai from the fifty amos of the gallows Haman prepared, zeh l’umas zeh.

1 The classically given answer for this custom is because this verse is the one in which there is a turnabout – when obviously good things are in store for the Jews.

Esther 5:12, Question 1. What is the significance of the word “af” (“furthermore”)?

יב וַיֹּאמֶר הָמָן אַף לֹא–הֵבִיאָה אֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה עִם–הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל–הַמִּשְׁתֶּה אֲשֶׁר–עָשָׂתָה כִּי אִם–אוֹתִי וְגַם–לְמָחָר אֲנִי קָרוּא–לָהּ עִם־הַמֶּלֶךְ

12. And Haman said, “Furthermore, did not Esther the Queen bring me with the king to the drinking party that she made that was with her. And also for tomorrow, I will happen upon her with the king.

• The Midrash (Esther Rabbah 9:3) notes that four characters used the term, “af” and their downfalls are recorded with the word, “af”: the snake (Bireishis 3:1), the baker imprisoned with Yosef (Bireishis 40:16), Korach’s group of usurpers (Bamidbar 16:14), and Haman in our verse.
• Torah Temimah points out that the Midrash is implying that they should have used the word, “gam,” a more humble alternative to “af.”
• The Dubno Maggid teaches that they used this word because “af” also means anger. These were angry people, and their hostility aroused H-Shem’s wrath. Things don’t work out for angry people. He continues that all four of these are characters who want more than they have, and are discontent with what they have. “Af,” then means “furthermore,” as though unsatisfied with what is already present.

Esther 5:11, Question 2. Why does the verse not mention the number of Haman’s sons?

• R’ Dovid Feinstein writes that Haman mentions his sons because a Jewish owner of a slave also owns his slave’s sons (Shemos 23:12). Haman was, in effect, saying that since he was Mordechai’s slave, his many sons belonged to Mordechai, as well.

• The Talmud (Megillah 15b) asks how many sons Haman actually had. The Talmud suggests 30, 70, 208, or even 214.

• The Maharsha explains that the word rov (“many”), implies more than the ten sons Megillas Esther will itself name.

• The Torah Temimah points out that the Talmud (Pesachim 64b) defines “many” as thirty people.

• The Ben Ish Chai is troubled by the large number of children with which the Talmud credits Haman. He explains that these sons were illegitimate offspring Haman sired from the wives of his officers. This large-scale betrayal of his officers’ trust may indicate why Haman was so unpopular, even in court.

Esther 4:17, Question 1. What does Mordechai pass in following Esther’s instructions?

יז וַיַּעֲבֹר מָרְדָּכָי וַיַּעַשׂ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר–צִוְּתָה עָלָיו אֶסְתֵּר

17. And Mordechai passed and did like all that Esther commanded on him.

• According to the Talmud (Megillah 15a), after hearing Esther’s response, Mordechai passed over either a river or the passed over (read: transgressed) the obligation to eat on the first night of Passover, since that night fell within the three days in which Esther asked the people to fast.
• The Me’am Loez writes that the verse is praising Mordechai for “crossed the river,” which implies that he preferred to follow the command himself – without the use of messengers. He, himself, crossed the river to gather the Jews together in prayer, fasting, and repentance.
• In explaining why Rashi, who usually gives a simpler explanation when available, decided to write the explanation that had to do with transgressing Pesach, the Torah Temimah gives two reasons: one is that the Torah always names an object being crossed when vaya’avor is used in relation to a physical object, and secondly, in actual fact, the fasting did occur through the first night of the Pesach seder.
• R’ Dovid Feinstein points out that someone can fast on Shabbos to annul a bad dream if that dream is dreamed on that day (Talmud, Shabbos 11a). If so, how much more-so can one fast on Yom Tov to annul a decree, so Mordechai was not transgressing at all.
• However, according to the opinion that he was, R’ Simcha Bunim of Peshis’cha explains that Mordechai felt his prayers would not be powerful enough to be listened to in the ordinary manner. Transgressing Pesach would get the Accuser, the Satan, involved. Once he gets involved, there would be a Heavenly tribunal. Once there is a trial, Heaven would recognize Mordechai’s good intent, and then would assist Mordechai in defending the Jews.
• In the first chapter of Tanna D’vei Eliyahu, it says that H-Shem can ignore insults. There, it writes that Esther’s arguing was spoken in an unfit manner, and yet Mordechai let it “pass” from his mind.
• M’nos HaLevi points out that crossing the river was as easy for Mordechai as jumping over a puddle. It was a small act, but the Torah records it for our benefit, so teach us the lesson of the power even in what may appear as minor, easy mitzvos (see Mishnah, Avos 2:1).

Esther 4:14, Question 1. Why does the verse use the double language of “silent, you will be silent?”

יד כִּי אִם–הַחֲרֵשׁ תַּחֲרִישִׁי בָּעֵת הַזֹּאת רֶוַח וְהַצָּלָ֞ה יַעֲמוֹד לַיְּהוּדִים מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר וְאַתְּ וּבֵית–אָבִיךְ תֹּאבֵדוּ וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם–לְעֵת כָּזֹאת הִגַּעַתְּ לַמַּלְכוּת

14. “Because if silent, you will be silent at this time, relief and rescue will stand to the Yehudim from another place. And you and your father’s house will be destroyed. And who knows if to a time like this you attained to royalty?”

• Often in the Torah, a double language implies an emphasis. This phrase here would mean, “if you are surely silent.”
• The Midrash in Esther Rabbah 8:6 writes that if Esther does not speak now, she will not be able to speak later. According to the Torah Temimah, this “later” refers to Esther’s judgment in Heaven in the end of her days.
• Yalkut Shimoni writes that this phrase is referring to the idea that if Esther is silent now, H-Shem will be silent about her. This is a reference to kareis (“spiritual excision”), in which a person lacks a spiritual connection to H-Shem. Class participant ID mentioned that this is the natural consequence of hishtadlus (“effort”). The effort we exhaust in serving H-Shem is answered in equal (or greater) force by Him in attending to our needs.

Esther 4:7, Question 1. What does the verse mean that Mordechai relates “what happened to him?”

ז וַיַּגֶּד–לוֹ מָרְדֳּכַי אֵת כָּל–אֲשֶׁר קָרָהוּ וְאֵת ׀ פָּרָשַׁת הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר אָמַר הָמָן לִשְׁקוֹל עַל–גִּנְזֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּיְּהוּדִיים [בַּיְּהוּדִים] לְאַבְּדָם

7. And Mordechai told him all that happened to him and the account of the silver that Haman said to weigh out on the king’s treasury in the Yehudim to annihilate them.

• According to M’nos HaLevi, when the verse says that Mordechai related to Hasach “what happened to him,” it means that Mordechai told him absolutely everything – his refusal to bow to Haman, the Jews’ sin, and even the answer from the three students cited earlier.
• Megillas Sesarim points out that Mordechai emphasized that this was happening to him personally because he felt responsible for this turn of events. Therefore, due to the Talmudic concept of “ein kateigor naaseh sineigor” (“the prosecutor cannot be the defender”) (see Rosh HaShanah 26a), Mordechai needed Esther to act in his stead.
• Other commentators focus on alternative meanings to the Hebrew word karahu, “what happened to him.” For instance, the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 8:5) writes that Mordechai was telling Esther that a descendant of the nation that which karcha, “happened upon” (Devarim 25:18) the Jewish people in the desert, had launched an attack. That verse is explicitly about Amalek, ancestor of Haman. This is important, writes the Ginzei HaMelech, because Mordechai was indicating that the Jewish people were being punished by a specific enemy for a specific sin. In other words, since H-Shem gave Amalek permission, as it were, to attack the Jews for their laxity in Torah study (see Rashi to Shemos 17:8), Mordechai recognized that the solution to Haman’s threat was to infuse the Jewish people with a rejuvenated alacrity.
• Besides the cause, this word also alludes to the manner in which this threat may be annulled – nature. The Ohel Moshe quotes the Yismach Yisroel that every battle between the Jewish people and Amalek involved nature. In the first battle, Moshe’s ordering Yehoshua to draft men to fight (Shemos 17:9) showed a stark contrast to the miraculous defeat of the Egyptians at the Sea of Reeds. The constant battle against Amalek cannot be miraculous, since H-Shem would never command us to perform something we naturally could not do.
• The Midrash (Esther Rabbah 8:5) also opines that in the words “what happened to him,” Mordechai was referring to the dream he dreamed ten years earlier, alluding to the Jewish people facing mortal danger¹.
• According to the Torah Temimah, the reason Mordechai received this message in the form of a dream is because dreams generally feel as though they are b’mikra, a natural happenstance occurrence.

1The entire text of the Midrash gives the details of the dream: Behold! There was a great, strong noise and terror on the land, and fear and trembling on all its inhabitants. And behold, two great dragons, and they yelled at each other and waged war. And after hearing their voices, the nations of the land fled. And behold! Among them was one small nation. And all of the other nations rose up against the small nation to destroy its memory from the land. On that day, there was darkness over the entire world, and they bothered the small nation greatly, and they cried out to H-Shem. And the dragons warred with violent hate, and there was nothing separating them. And Mordechai saw: Behold! One small spring of water passed between these two dragons, and separated between them, from the war that they were fighting. And the spring strengthened. It flowed as strongly as the great [Mediterranean] sea. It spilled over the entire land. And he saw the sun shining over the entire land and bringing light to the world. The small nation was rising. And the big nations were brought low. And Behold! There was peace and truth throughout on the entire land.

Esther 4:4, Question 5. Why is Esther distressed?

• M’nos HaLevi writes that Esther was distressed because Mordechai chose not to tell her the reason for his behavior, himself.
• The Talmud (Megillah 15a) takes the unusual word, “vatis’chal’chal” (“and she was distressed”) literally as “became empty.” In other words, the Talmud says that, upon learning this news, Esther either became a niddah (began menstruating) or had loosened bowels. In other words, as Rabbi Mendel Weinbach puts it, the news for Esther was so intense, that she lost control of her physical functions.
• The Midrash (Esther Rabbah 8:3) similarly says that Esther miscarried at the news of Mordechai’s mourning. Torah Temimah says the Midrash here is using the root of the word, “chalal” (“empty”) to refer to the last chapter in Yeshaya (66:8) where the prophet says that Tzion will have troubles (“kee chala gam yalda”), and will give birth, indicating a relationship between this word and childbearing.

Esther 3:9, Question 3. Why does Haman choose the specific number of 10,000 loaves of silver?

Many commentators, the Rambam included, believe that numbers have no significance in the Torah. According to them, the main purpose served by numerology and gematria is pedagogic; they can serve as mnemonic learning tools to help students better remember key information. In the philosophy of the Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:46), a particular number of sacrifices is mentioned in reference to one sacrifice over another only to emphasize its seriousness. If we were to ask why a particular number is used rather than another number, we could never be satisfied. In our case here, had Haman offered 9,000 loaves of silver, would we not ask why that number? Moreover, would we not be able to think of a great many powerful reasons? Despite this, the vast majority of opinions accord with the idea that numbers do have symbolic significance throughout the Written and Oral Torahs. Especially in a book like Megillat Esther, which we have seen is densely coded to add levels of meaning, numbers seem to play a significant role in understanding the text¹.

• The Vilna Gaon says here that the significance of this number of Haman’s offer is that it is a monstrously huge amount. A shekel is 0.8 ounces of silver. A loaf (or bar) of silver is 30,000 shekels, or 24,000 ounces of silver. Therefore, Haman’s 10,000 loaves of silver are equal to 24,000,000 ounces, or 750 tons, of silver. Class participant JS calculated that such an amount would be equivalent to $941,280,000 in 2012 standards.
• According to Ibn Ezra, this is amplified. He considers this an abbreviated phrase, and that the money offered by Haman is 100,000 loaves of silver.
• Rav Dovid Feinstein says Haman offered this particular amount because he projected this to be the cost of killing off the Jews.
• The Targum translates this verse as “100 times their amount.” What is meant is probably related to the Talmud (Megillah 13b) that states that H-Shem, for Whom time does not exist, gave the Jews the law of giving the half-shekel (Mishnah, Shekalim 1:1) to counteract the effect of Haman’s offer.
• According to Ben Ish Chai, this ratio is alluded to in a blessing for the Jews (Vayikra 26:8) that “one hundred of you will pursue ten thousand.”
• According to the Rambam, such is the power of a mitzvah that each Jew’s individual half-shekel is enough to outweigh the worth of any number of loaves of silver, or anything else.
• According to the Talmud (Megillah 16a), upon confronting Mordechai before leading him though the city on the king’s horse (6:11 below), Haman himself acknowledges to Mordechai that the half-shekel given by the Jews overpowered his offer to the king.
• According to Tosvos on that page (d.h. “Vidachei”), the half-shekel given by the Jews leaving Egypt equaled exactly the 10,000 loaves of silver. Tosvos, however, note there is a difficulty with the math. Otherwise, why would the half-shekel of 600,000 men aged 20-70 leaving Egypt, which should equal 300,000 shekels, be comparable to 10,000 loaves of silver, or 30,000 shekels?
• Rav Yaakov Emden’s solution to this problem is to point out that in earlier manuscripts of Tosvos, it does not say “chetzi shekel” (“half-shekel”), but the acronym “Ch’Sh,” which could mean “chamishim shekel” (“fifty shekel”). When fifty shekel are multiplied by 600,000, the result is 30,000,000 shekel, the value of Haman’s offer.
• The Bach answers Tosvos’s math problem by explaining that in an average lifetime of seventy years (see Tehillim 90:10), a man will give a half-shekel fifty times between the ages of twenty and seventy, or twenty-five shekels. 600,000 men giving twenty-five shekels would be 15,000,000 shekels. These 15,000,000 shekels divided by 1500 shekalim (the value of a Beis HaMikdash loaf) would be exactly 10,000 loaves.
• Rabbeinu Bachya (on Shemos 38:25) and the Torah Temimah answer Tosvos’s math problem differently. According to them, the half-shekel given by the Jews in the desert was a dedication of money representing the valuation of their own worth. According to the Torah (Vayikra 27:2), each man is worth 50 shekels. All 600,000 men donating their own worth of 50 shekels each would be worth 30,000,000 shekels. These 30,000,000 divided by the 3000 totals 10,000. When they actually gave this half-shekel, the Torah testifies (Shemos 38:25) that this silver totaled one hundred loaves, plus one thousand seven hundred seventy-five shekels. Therefore, Haman’s loaves were one hundred times more than the hundred loaves of the Jews leaving Egypt. Furthermore, the number of Jews contributing is given in the next verse (ibid. 26) as 603,550. The additional 1755 shekels were given by the 3550 people.
• Rabbi Aryeh Naiman reminds us that the whole purpose of the half-shekel was to an indirect form of census-taking. The more direct form, actually counting individuals is a sure recipe for plague, as the Torah (Shemos 30:12) warns. Rashi there explains that because of “ayin hara” (“the evil eye”). The evil eye is caused by people being jealous of what others possess. When Person A becomes jealous, he begins to question why Person B deserves the luxury Person A desires. In Heaven, too, where the Heavenly angels mirror our behavior (see Nefesh HaChaim 1:7), they also begin to question why Person B deserved that object. After all, who is truly worthy of all the blessings bestowed upon us by H-Shem? It is only through the Chesed (kindness) of H-Shem that we are not judged more harshly. He, in His Mercy, over-values our merits, and temporarily overlooks our deficiencies to give us the opportunity to improve (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Teshuva 3:5). When the Heavenly court focuses on one person due to our jealousy, that person’s good fortune will be restrained. Rashi (on Shemos 30:12) points out that this taking of a person out of the general populace and examining him or her with more scrutiny is the cause of plague. Incidentally, in the laws of kashrus, too, Rabbi Naiman points out, if a drop of milk falls into a pot of beef stew, the milk would probably be nullified in the majority. However, if that drop is recognizable still, even if the pot were the size of football stadium, the milk would not be nullified, since there is a rule (Talmud, Zevachim 73b) that one cannot nullify what is recognizable. Regarding people, too, without a community, one does not have the merits of the community with which to stand judgment. Regarding the half-shekel, everybody – rich and poor – gave the same amount (Shemos 30:15). Also, everybody gave one half of a shekel, rather than a complete amount. In a symbolic sense, Person A’s half-shekel was made “whole” only with Person B’s contribution. In the desert, the shekels were used to cast the sockets of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) (see Rashi to Shemos 30:16). Each individual socket was used as the base for the beam just like each individual in a community helps make a foundation for everyone else. When there were later censuses taken, the half-shekels were used to fund communal offerings (see Rashi to Shemos 30:15). Interestingly, Amalek first attacked the Jewish people (Shemos 17:8) when the Jews began to speak in first-person, individual language (ibid. 3). Amalek gains strength when Jews lose focus of their nationhood. Rabbi Naiman quotes R’ Yeshayahu Horowitz as saying that Haman’s claim to Achashverosh is that the Jewish people are vulnerable because they do not care about their national identity. Only then can Haman’s 10,000 loaves overpower their offerings. This is why it was so important for the Jews to unify in order to nullify Haman’s decree.
• Another answer comes from Rabbi Mordechai Kornfeld who brings the Vilna Gaon in Kol Eliyahu on the Talmud (Kiddushin 12a) that dates in Persia were once worth more than silver. If silver was so devalued, Haman’s 10,000 loaves were indeed equal to the Jews’ contribution in the desert.
• Rabbi Zev Reichman quotes Rabbi Moshe Wolfson with an interesting question; assuming the 600,000 people’s half-shekel pieces correspond with 10,000 loaves of silver, what does Haman make of the extra 1775 shekel pieces given by the extra 3550 people in the census? There were people of the tribe of Dan who walked through the desert worshiping idols, oblivious to the open miracles all around them. In fact, when Amalek attacked, their victims were these “nechshalim” (“stragglers”) (Devarim 25:18). According to the Maharal (Gevuras H-Shem), the 600,000 is a symbolic number. It represents perfection. The remaining 3550 represent the people lacking in their spiritual perfection. Amalek attacks those very people because they sense their weakness. Haman, too, ignores their contribution because, in his estimation, the G-d of the Jews should not care about them. Indeed, his silver loaves match the contributions of the 600,000. But it was the 1775 shekels of the Jews Haman thought G-d forgot that outmatched Haman’s offering, and effectively rescued the Jews. Incidentally, the gematria for the Hebrew word “kikar” (“loaf”) (20+20+200=240) equals exactly the gematria of Amalek (70+40+30+100).
• On another level, the Rabbeinu Bachya writes that Haman’s 10,000 loaves of silver were meant to counter the power of the Ten Commandments since Haman’s word “eshkol” (“will be weighed out”) can be broken up into “eish” (“fire”) and “kol” (“voice/sound”). Fire and sounds marked the giving of the Ten Commandments (Shemos 19:18-19).
• The Ben Ish Chai writes that the Jews of Achashverosh’s reign, confident that the Temple would be rebuilt, were accruing funds for that purpose. The money they gathered were called adrochanya, worth two shekel. 600,000 representative number of Jews gathering these 800 loaves for the twelve years of Achashverosh’s reign would be 9600 loaves of silver, 400 less than Haman’s. This is why the Jews needed from that Nisan to the next Adar to gather 800 more loaves. This totaled 10,400. The additional 400 represent the 400 men who came with Eisav when he met up with Yaakov (Bereishis 33:1). According to Kabbalistic literature, this number thus represents 400 forces of impurity. This extra number of loaves overpower Haman – descendant of Eisav.
• The Steipler Gaon asks why this number has to match at all. After all, Haman is evil, and the charity given by the Jews is pure. When Yaakov met up with Eisav, he told him he had lived with Lavan (Bereishis 32:5) as a sign of humility. He was saying that he lived with Lavan, but did not learn from him (see Rashi there). What could Yaakov learn from the evil Lavan? Enthusiasm. Yaakov should have learned to perform mitzvos with the same enthusiasm with which Lavan sinned. The Steipler says that the Jews’ gifts need to match up mathematically with Haman’s offer because the Jews, too, need to match his enthusiasm for hate in order to overpower it. In short, as is true in various areas of Jewish philosophy, R’ Gedalya Schorr brings up that there needs to be a certain amount of good to balance out the bad, a concept known as “zeh l’umas zeh” (“this instead of this”, a phrase borrowed from Koheles 7:14). One could imagine spirituality as a bottle. This bottle is always full. Like all other things in nature, spirituality abhors a vacuum. So, if there is less holiness in that bottle, evil will take up that space so that the bottle is complete. The same zeh l’umas zeh dichotomy exists in all areas of life – love and hate, beauty and ugliness, kindness and meanness, etc.²

1 Otherwise, why does the text mention Achashverosh’s party lasting for 180 days? Why does the text mention the day of the party on which Vashti was killed? Why does the text mention the number of Achashverosh’s officers? Why does the text name and number certain months? Why does the text mention the number of Haman’s sons)? Why does the text mention the number of Persians killed by the Yehudim?

2This idea helps explain why prophecy ended when H-Shem fulfilled the Rabbis’ prayer to remove the desire for idol worship from the world (Talmud, Yoma 69b). Prophecy and idol worship, after all, are just different sides of the same coin.