Esther · Chapter 2

He remembered Vashti. Her beauty, and he became sad. — Notes: (1) He was remorseful having realized that her refusal to appear before him was justified and the decree against her was wrong. Providence, however, had ordained her execution because she had persuaded Achashveirosh to prohibit the restoration of the Bais Hamikdosh which had been destroyed by Nevuchadnetzar, her grandfather.

"ka-shokh" (when [the wrath] was assuaged) — is an infinitive noun from the geminate (doubled-root) verbs. "he remembered Vashti" — [this is stated] explicitly; and it is possible that he [also] remembered her beauty, hence the vav of "and what she had done." "was decreed" (nigzar) — from the same root as "between the pieces" (bein ha-gezarim) (Genesis 15:17).

The Questions: What did he intend by the threefold statement here: 'Vashti,' 'what she had done,' and 'what was decreed against her'? 'He remembered Vashti' — [Scripture] relates that after the king's wrath subsided and it occurred to him to take another woman as queen, he became afraid in his heart because of three things. (1) He remembered Vashti — her beauty, her lineage, and her virtues — and he thought it would be difficult to find a woman like her. (2) He remembered what she had done, and he feared to take a wife lest he find one who is also of noble lineage and beautiful like Vashti, and she too would do as Vashti did, and the judgment of his throne would not be secure, for he would have to kill her too, and people would say that he kills his wives. (3) He remembered what had been decreed against her, and he feared that even if he found a woman fit for him, she would not want to marry him, because she would fear that he would kill her too.

"After these things, king Ahasuerus remembered..." etc. (Esther 2:1). This means to say that immediately after the incident he remembered Vashti — that is, he called her to mind. And every act of "remembering" implies compassion for the one remembered, as it is said (Jeremiah 31:19), "Is Ephraim a darling son to Me, a child that is dandled? For as often as I speak of him, I do earnestly remember him still; therefore My heart yearns for him, I will surely have compassion on him, says Hashem." Therefore it is written "after these things, he remembered Vashti" — the verse comes to say that immediately, as soon as he had done the deed and had Vashti killed, he had compassion on her for having been killed. Now, by reasoning, it would not have been fitting for him to remember her right away, since at first it is written (above, 1:12), "and the king was very wroth, and his wrath burned in him." Rather, this was certainly from Hashem, who decreed that she be killed; and therefore, immediately once the king's decree was carried out, Hashem at once caused his wrath to be assuaged, for the wrath was only from Hashem, as was explained above. Therefore it is written "after these things," and it is not written merely "when the king's wrath was assuaged" alone, but rather it comes to say that immediately after the killing the king's wrath was assuaged, for every expression of "after" [achar] denotes immediate proximity — and this is proof that it was a decree of Hashem. Therefore it says "and what was decreed against her," meaning that this is what had been decreed against her by Hashem. And because his servants heard that he remembered Vashti, they therefore said that certainly it was because of his longing for a woman that he remembered her, and that he was regretting her loss. Therefore his servants said (verse 2), "Let them seek for the king young virgins..." etc. And they said "let them seek young virgins" right away, immediately, since the king was distressed over the lack of a wife. And one could not rely solely on "and let the king appoint officers" (verse 3), for that matter requires a lengthy time to appoint officers throughout all the provinces of his kingdom, and therefore he said "let them seek for the king" immediately. Nevertheless, one could not rely on this alone, lest not even a single one prove pleasing to the king, and therefore they said afterward, "and let the king appoint..." etc. Therefore "let them seek" is written first, because, since they are not many — inasmuch as they do not go about gathering throughout all the provinces of the king — a "seeking" is required, for they are few. But "in all the provinces of his kingdom" many were to be found. Furthermore, at first they were seeking young virgins and saying that the king wished to see her and make her queen in place of Vashti, and they did not reveal to them that he was gathering many virgins in order to lie with them. But "in all the provinces of his kingdom" it was impossible to do so, for by then it had already become known that he was lying with them, and everyone withheld his daughter from being given. Therefore it says (verse 3), "and let them gather every young woman" — meaning that he gathered them against their will. But at first this was not so; rather, everyone gave his daughter willingly and did not hide her from him, because they had been told that his intention was to make her queen. Likewise, at first they said only "let them seek for the king young virgins fair to look on," and they would come to the king immediately, having no need of women's cosmetic treatments, because they were very beautiful. But afterward it is written "and let them gather every young virgin fair to look on" — it writes "every young virgin fair to look on," and "every young woman" implies even one who is not extremely fair to look on, but only somewhat fair to look on. Therefore it is written "and let their cosmetic treatments be given," for they require twelve months of women's cosmetic treatments (below, verse 12). And because king Ahasuerus needed women immediately, he said at first "let them seek young virgins fair to look on," meaning that they should be very fair, with no need at all for women's cosmetic treatments — and for this reason "good" (tovot) is written in full spelling, meaning that they were completely fair. But regarding "and let the king appoint," "fair" (tovat) is written in defective spelling, for even though they were not extremely fair, still, through women's cosmetic treatments they would become fair and beautiful. And in the Gemara (Megillah 12b): on "and let the king appoint officers," Rav Nachman said in the name of Rava: What is the meaning of that which is written (Proverbs 13:16), "Every prudent man deals with knowledge, but a fool spreads out folly"? "Every prudent man deals with knowledge" — this is David the king, peace be upon him, of whom it is written (I Kings 1:2), "and his servants said to him, let them seek for my lord the king a young virgin," and whoever had a daughter brought her to him. "But a fool spreads out folly" — this is Ahasuerus, of whom it is written "and let the king appoint officers," for whoever had a daughter hid her from him. And this too they said for the sake of the greatness of the miracle, for Hashem withheld wisdom from him, so that he would be foolish in this matter. For had he done as David did, he might have found others who appeared more comely than Esther. But since he did it this way, the beautiful daughters were hidden away. Now one might raise a difficulty: why did Mordechai not likewise hide Esther? But this is no difficulty, for she certainly was hidden, and nevertheless Hashem acted and brought it about that she was found. And the reason this is not stated explicitly in the verse is this: had it been written, one might think that were it not for this she would have been one who goes about openly, and only now — so that she would not be taken to the house of Ahasuerus — was she kept from being seen, and Hashem caused her to be revealed. But this is not so, for even without this, "all the glory of the king's daughter is within" (Psalms 45:14), and she would have been hidden regardless. This is especially so in her case, whose very name was "Esther" [related to hester, hiddenness], for her whole character was modesty and concealment, as we have written that this was the whole matter of Esther. Therefore the verse did not spell out that she had been hidden and that through some cause she came to be revealed.

"let there be sought" (yevakshu) — [to be read] with the strength of the ayin, which ought properly to take a dagesh, and there are many similar to it. And the word "seekers" (mevakshim) is elliptically omitted, like "whom she bore to Levi" (Numbers 26:59).

The Questions: The counsel of the young men was foolish — that for a king such as this they should seek a wife from the streets, which is a disgrace to his honor. At first it says 'let them seek,' which indicates those who come of their own free will, and then it says 'let him appoint officers and let them gather,' which indicates [gathering them] against their will. 'Then said' — when he made known his fear to his servants, they gave him sound counsel to remove these three apprehensions. Corresponding to what he remembered of Vashti and her beauty, they said: let them seek for my lord the king a wife fit for the king, and let them not look at lineage at all, only that they be maidens fair to look upon — for why should so great a king pay heed to lineage?

And let his majesty appoint officials. Since every commissioner is familiar with the beautiful women in his province. — Notes: (2) Rather than appoint commissioners from Shushan, he should appoint local commissioners in his provinces because they would be more readily able to find the most beautiful women in their own provinces. Their cosmetics. These are substances that cleanse [the skin], as in, “that shall be purged [וּמֹרַק] and rinsed.” These are perfumed oils, various ingredients and spices that cleanse and soften the skin. — Notes: (3) Vayikra 6:21. (4) Maseches Megillah 13a.

"their ointments" (tamrukeihen) — like the word "tamruk" in "stripes that purge away evil" (tamruk bara) (Proverbs 20:30).

The Questions: And why did they specify that they be placed in the hand of Hegai? And why does it mention that their ointments were given to them, which is not relevant to the matter of the counsel? And corresponding to what he remembered — what had been decreed against her — and his heart's fear that a woman would not want to marry him, they said that after they first sought those who would come willingly, and if they did not find a suitable woman for him, then he should appoint officers and gather every maiden by force. (They were also clever in this, that he should appoint new officers for this purpose, since with a newly-appointed officer, people would not feel confident enough to offer him a bribe to conceal and turn a blind eye regarding the daughters of the wealthy.) And corresponding to the aforementioned apprehension — what he remembered of what she had done, and his fear that she would do as Vashti did — they advised him that the maidens be gathered to the hand of Hegai, and that they should not bring their ointments from their own homes, but rather 'let their ointments be given to them' through the eunuchs. In this way they would be constantly submissive toward the eunuchs and would not become haughty in their hearts as Vashti was, for whom it was a disgrace that the king sent to her by the hand of the eunuchs.

"and the maiden" — even if she is not of distinguished lineage, so long only as she pleases the king. "And the thing pleased the king" — here he did not need the advice of the officials as he did above, for [the king] had already placed the power in his hand to do everything by himself, as mentioned above.

"Shall reign instead of Vashti" (verse 4). This is why it said "instead of Vashti," rather than saying merely, 'and let the maiden who pleases the king reign.' It is because it wished to say that it is no disgrace to the king for a queen to reign who is not of royal lineage. For had she not been coming in place of Vashti, but this had been the very start of her reign, in that case one might say this is a disgrace to the king. But since Vashti, who was of royal lineage, had been queen from the start, and it was only that she did an evil deed and was killed, and another is coming in her place — this is no disgrace to the king.

There was a Yehudite man. Because he was exiled with the exile of Yehudah. All those who were exiled with the kings of Yehudah were called יְהוּדִים [Yehudites] among the nations, even if they were from another tribe. — Notes: (5) Rashi offers this explanation to reconcile the contradiction at the end of this verse where Mordechai is described as a Binyaminite man. Targum renders איש יהודי, “a pious Jew.” Alternatively, יהוד is similar to יחוד [=unification], i.e., Mordechai publicly unified God’s Name by refusing to bow before Haman, who wore an idolatrous image. (Esther Rabbah 6:2 and see Maseches Megillah 12b-13a) (6) Maseches Megillah 12b. A Binyaminite man. He was from Binyamin, that is the plain meaning. But our Rabbis expounded what they expounded. — Notes: (7) Ibid.

"a certain Jew" (ish Yehudi) — he is called thus because he was from the kingdom of Judah. "in Shushan the castle" — because he was already at the king's gate before the matter of Esther, therefore he dwelled in the palace. "the son of Kish" — he [Kish] was great among his ancestors; and had he been the father of Saul, [Scripture] would have mentioned Saul, since he was the king and not his father. Therefore it is not known whether Mordecai was of the descendants of Saul or not. "a Benjamite" (Yemini) — the word "ben" (son of) is omitted, in an abbreviated manner.

"There was a certain Jew in Shushan" (Esther 2:5), etc. — After God has made known to us all the evils that we brought upon ourselves — the wicked Haman, who caught us in his net, gathered us into his snare, Haman fed us bread of mourning (cf. Hosea 9:4), namely the feast of Ahasuerus and the wine of his drinking-feast, and condemned us to death — as per the statement of R. Yishmael in Midrash Chazit, that Haman was a wicked counselor to King Ahasuerus to condemn Israel, and that he himself gathered together 18,500 of the Israelites who were in Shushan, against the will of Mordecai, who was crying out loudly about the wine, that they should not act treacherously — this concerning the Jews who were in Shushan — saying to them: "Do not go, and do not eat the bread of wickedness, for evil is before you," to teach an accusation against you; but they did not listen and did not incline their ear — "according to their pasture, so they were filled" (Hosea 13:6) — and thus they became liable to destruction before the Omnipresent, as we mentioned above in the language of R. Yishmael's statement. Now He, blessed be He, comes to teach us the knowledge of God in the land, and His providence in doing good for us — that He did not withhold His kindness and truth from His people and heritage, Israel, and did not deal with us according to our sins, for He did not withhold from us a redeemer to rectify what the wicked Haman had perverted; and Hashem raised up for us Mordecai, through whom our forgiveness would come, and through Esther, whom Mordecai took as a daughter — and this is the meaning of "There was a certain Jew," etc. And as our Rabbis of blessed memory said: anyone about whom Scripture says "there was" (haya) was already prepared for what would be accomplished through him — thus "Moses was a shepherd" (Exodus 3:1): he was prepared for the redemption; and so too, "there was a certain Jew" — he was prepared for the redemption. Before we come to the matter, let us consider: what was it that led Him, blessed be He, to foresee and prepare two redeemers, when one would have sufficed? And one cannot answer that Mordecai was the primary one, of whom it says "there was" because he was prepared for the redemption, while Esther was only a minor help — for behold, our Rabbis of blessed memory said, concerning "for she had neither father nor mother" (Esther 2:7): "You said, 'We are orphans and have no father'; [Hashem said,] 'By your life, the redeemer whom I establish will likewise have no father and mother,'" as it says, "for she had neither father nor mother." Behold, that Esther too is among our redeemers. Now, to come to the matter, let us consider: what was the transgression of Jacob and the sin of the house of Judah that brought that great evil upon them at the hand of the adversary and enemy, the wicked Haman? For behold, we find that our Rabbis of blessed memory held divided views, two camps arrayed one against the other. Namely: in Midrash Chazit, the view settled that it was for the sin of the feast that they became liable, as it says: "R. Yishmael said: 18,500 went to the banquet house," etc.; "immediately the Accuser arose and denounced them before the Holy One, blessed be He, and said," etc.; "immediately the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Accuser, 'Bring the scroll, and I will write a decree of destruction against them,'" etc. — behold, this is R. Yishmael's view, that it was for the sin of the feast that they became liable to destruction. And likewise, that same midrash concludes by saying that Elijah went to the Patriarchs of the world, asking that they take heed of the matter, but they paid no heed, saying, "If they sinned, what can we do for them?" And afterward he came to Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, and said to him, "What will you answer concerning this trouble, for children have come to the birthstool [and there is no strength to bring forth]," etc. Moses said to him — that is, he asked, is there a righteous man in that generation? etc. He (Elijah) said to him, "Let him seek mercy — he from there and I from here," etc. He returned and said to him: "If it is sealed with blood, our prayer will not be heard; but if it is sealed with clay, our prayer will be heard." Before we come to the matter, let us consider, according to our approach: what was it that, after he found no remedy from the Patriarchs, gave him the confidence to go to Moses? And also, why was it that the Patriarchs despaired of seeking mercy, unlike Moses? And let us examine closely his saying to Moses, "What will you answer concerning this trouble," which he did not say to the Patriarchs; and likewise, what is the meaning of his saying, "if it is sealed with blood," etc. — what is their significance, and why would prayer be heard through this? Now, behold, our Sages of blessed memory said that at the time of the Destruction, Jeremiah summoned the Patriarchs and Moses, and each one interceded favorably, but it did not avail regarding the sin of Israel; therefore, now too, the Patriarchs paid no heed, saying, "What can we do, if they have sinned?" — and this was spoken out of worry, lest, as happened at the time of the Destruction, it happen to them again now, that they cried out and were not answered, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said in Eichah Rabbah. Then he went to Moses and said to him, "What will you answer concerning this trouble" — that is to say: "I know you could answer as the Patriarchs did, since you too were not answered at the time of the Destruction, as they were not; however, since this trouble pertains specifically to you, you cannot answer in that way" — and this is the meaning of "What will you answer concerning this trouble." For behold, Haman cast pur, that is, the lot, from day to day and from month to month, and found no suitable day except the day of the passing of Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, reasoning that on the day of his passing, his merit departed from over Israel. It follows that this trouble pertains to him (Moses) specifically; therefore Elijah tells him, do not answer as the Patriarchs did, for this matter concerns you — since it was upon your departure from Israel that he relied to destroy them; therefore do not answer as the Patriarchs did, but rather show them that your merit has not departed from them entirely, but that even now you will stand by them — and this is the meaning of "What will you answer concerning this trouble." Then he (Moses) agreed to do so, and he (Elijah) said to him, "If it is sealed with blood," etc. Now, the way that appears at first in saying "if it is sealed with blood," etc., is that he asked whether it is sealed with blood — meaning concerning the sin of the image, which carries the penalty of death and blood, like the law of the "subverted city," put to the sword, where it was not merely outward but done with genuine intent, in which case prayer is not heard; but if it is sealed with clay — which refers to the enjoyment of Ahasuerus's feast, that is, material enjoyment — our prayer is heard. And he was told that it was sealed with clay; from this it appears that it was because they enjoyed Ahasuerus's feast. And likewise, what our Rabbis of blessed memory said in the Gemara, which we wrote above, concerning the verse "and next to him, Carshena" (Esther 1:14), also indicates explicitly that it was for the sin of the feast that they became liable. Now, in contrast to this, the statement we mentioned above — that his disciples asked Rashbi (R. Shimon bar Yochai) why Israel, God forbid, became liable, etc. — he proved to them that the matter was because of the sin of the image, except that it was only outward — behold, that it was for the sin of the image that this trouble came upon them. But surely it seems strange to posit three conflicting opinions on the matter. Therefore I say that the intent of the three statements is one and the same. And to arrive at the essence of the matter, let us recall the language of R. Yishmael's statement in Midrash Chazit, which says that the corruption of their net was the sin of the feast — as the statement goes: for thus said the Accuser in his indictment concerning the sin of the feast: "Until when will You cling to this nation, for they do not come before You in complete repentance," etc. But surely this is difficult, for their food was still in their mouths — so when had repentance even been made, such that one could say it was not complete? But there is no doubt that he was troubled by the difficulty Rashbi posed to his disciples: that if their evil fate was because of the feast, only those of Shushan should be killed, but those of the rest of the world should not be killed; therefore he says: there is no doubt that they had not yet been purified of the all-encompassing sin of the image, but had only begun to repent of it, and the attribute of justice was not accusing them until the abomination of the feast was committed — and then the Accuser had an opening to accuse, and to say that the matter of the feast proves that they had not repented completely of the sin of the image, in that through the sin of the feast, the sin of the image was reawakened and stirred up again — and this is what he meant by "they do not come in complete repentance," for this sin proves the incompleteness of repentance regarding the previous one, and fills up the measure of guilt. It follows accordingly that even according to R. Yishmael, both this and that were the cause; and with this he spoke well at the end of his statement, where Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, asked Elijah, "Is it sealed with blood, or is it sealed with clay?" — for he did not ask for what reason the decree was made, but rather with what it was sealed: whether with blood, which pertains to the sin of the image, or with clay, which pertains to their material enjoyment at the feast. And the intent is that both the sin of the feast and the guilt of the image arose and stood in the heavenly court to condemn them, and the doubt was only as to which of them the sealing was based on — in the manner of the generation of the Flood, where there was licentiousness, idolatry, and robbery, yet their sentence was sealed only for robbery, even though there were other sins greater and worse than it; and likewise, according to the view of Rashbi, who says that they were condemned to destruction only for the sin of the image, it cannot be that the sin of the feast is not remembered or accounted for; for even though they were not condemned for it alone, the sin itself is not erased, and requires purging and rectification; but his view is only that their sentence was sealed for the sin of the image, while the sin of the feast was also present with it, and stirred it up. And so it is indicated by what our Rabbis of blessed memory say in the Gemara, and this is its language: "Rabbi opened this exposition for this portion from here: 'As a roaring lion and a ranging bear, so is a wicked ruler over a poor people' (Proverbs 28:15). 'A roaring lion' — this is Nebuchadnezzar; 'a ranging bear' — this is Ahasuerus; 'a wicked ruler' — this is Haman; 'over a poor people' — these are Israel, who were poor in observance of the commandments." And it is worth noting: what has Nebuchadnezzar to do with Haman in this context, and what was the "roaring" of Nebuchadnezzar — was not the Destruction more than mere "roaring"? And furthermore, what is the significance of "a ranging bear" regarding Ahasuerus, that it should relate to Haman's rule over Israel? But the meaning is that two bodies of sin gave Haman dominion over Israel: one, the roaring of Nebuchadnezzar — "that whoever does not fall down and worship the image shall be cast into the burning fiery furnace" (Daniel 3:6) — for out of fear of him, Israel bowed to the image; and also, Ahasuerus being a "ranging bear," in that he commanded his agents to gather all the people found in Shushan, who are "a people saved by Hashem" (Deuteronomy 33:29), as our Rabbis of blessed memory said in a wordplay, that the legs of His people would range about in the streets — to feed them his feast. These two sins were the cause of Haman's ruling over a people poor in the merit of the commandments to protect them. Behold, that there were two sins together at that time in the hands of Israel. Now, from this we have found good reason to justify why there were two redeemers, and one did not suffice — for since there were two bodies of sin, two were required, Mordecai and Esther, so that the merit of each would protect against each of them, and through this one and that one the redemption would be completed. And still we must consider which sin each of the redeemers protects against — and I think that Mordecai, who cried out in the marketplaces that they should not go to the feast, his merit would protect them from that sin; and Esther, from the sin of the image, for she became queen in place of Vashti, granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar, who had caused them to sin through the image. And this will be the meaning of the Gemara's statement in tractate Chullin, in the laws of ritual slaughter — for indeed it appears that the two sins together caused our harm — and this is its language: "Where is Haman alluded to in the Torah? As it is written, 'Have you eaten of the tree (ha-min ha-etz)...' (Genesis 3:11). Where is Esther alluded to in the Torah? As it is written, 'And I will surely hide (haster astir) My face...' (Deuteronomy 31:18). Where is Mordecai alluded to in the Torah? As it is written, 'pure myrrh (mor deror)' (Exodus 30:23), which we render in Aramaic as mira dachya." Now surely their words, of blessed memory, seem strange — for what has Haman to do with the Torah, and moreover, the verse mentions nothing of him except his evil death upon the tree (gallows)? And also, what is his connection to Parashat Bereishit? And also, the question regarding Esther — what need is there for her to be alluded to at all? And furthermore, that Haman is alluded to in Parashat Bereishit, Esther in Parashat Vayelech, and Mordecai in Parashat Ki Tissa — why should the Gemara ask about these and not others? But behold, their intent was that, without doubt, every wise-hearted person will investigate and inquire, for it cannot be avoided to ask whether they were condemned for a grave matter — the sin of the image, difficult to rectify except through the attribute of kindness and mercy — or for a lighter matter, such as the enjoyment of Ahasuerus's feast, which is easy to rectify. And this second alternative appears correct, from the reversal God wrought, whereby the Jews had rule over their enemies and killed them as they wished, instead of being given over to destruction, etc., and how much more so, the hanging of Haman and his sons, even though he was viceroy to the king — suggesting that had it been on account of kindness alone, it would have sufficed merely to save their lives from the hand of the enemy. But the truth of the first alternative appears from the fact that this salvation came through a woman, who had to marry Ahasuerus, and through her endangering herself by coming to the king contrary to law, after she knew that his one law was to put an uninvited person to death, etc., and moreover, that when she entered the house of the images, the Divine Presence departed from her, and she began to cry out, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" (Psalms 22:2), etc., as our Rabbis of blessed memory said — for all this indicates that there was a great hiding of the Face there. And accordingly, this too presents a difficulty: for it appears that through the salvation of Israel, Mordecai became exceedingly great — and how much more so, according to what our Rabbis of blessed memory said, that he reigned over Israel with a complete kingship from the time of the miracle onward — and how is it that through the rectification of a criminal sin, committed amid such a hiding of the Face that they were condemned to destruction, not only was there salvation, but he even merited all this honor? And this is a wonder. Behold, the intent of this discourse is to set before us a path "where light dwells" (Job 38:19), to straighten the ways regarding all the difficult matters we raised: first, the downfall of Haman apart from our salvation; second, "I will surely hide"; third, the greatness of Mordecai. Namely: it is known that not one word of the words of the Prophets and the Writings fails to be found written or alluded to in the Book of the Torah, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said in tractate Taanit, in the incident concerning R. Yochanan and the son of Reish Lakish, regarding the verse "The foolishness of man perverts his way..." (Proverbs 19:3). Now, there is no doubt that it is not an empty matter that Haman is alluded to in Parashat Bereishit, Esther in Parashat Vayelech, and Mordecai in Ki Tissa; but truly, from the place which Hashem chose to allude to each matter, from beneath it will sprout forth the resolution and answer to the difficulty that applies to each particular. And the matter is that Israel had two evils in hand: one, the sin of the feast, and the second, the sin of the image; but the matter of the image was only outward, as per the statement of Rashbi; and therefore two redeemers were needed — Mordecai to protect against the sin of the feast, and Esther against the sin of the image, as we have written. This accords with what we wrote from the Midrash, that Haman advised to cause Israel to sin through Ahasuerus's feast, and that he himself gathered them. And with this the Gemara explains what you observe — that it was not enough that He, blessed be He, saved us, but that Haman, who nested (plotted) to destroy us, was also hanged — the reason being that from the very place through which we became liable, the evil came upon him, for it was through the feast; and since he was the one who brought about that evil, in that he fed it to us, as we have written, it is therefore fitting that when we were saved, he should be trapped. And this is the meaning of "Have you eaten of the tree (ha-min ha-etz)..." — that is, that Haman was hung on a tree, and it was not enough that we merely escaped — the reason being that "of the tree which I commanded you not to eat, you have eaten" — this is the feast, which came about through him; therefore it is fitting that he be hanged upon a tree. And what you observe of the hiding of the Face regarding Esther, who protects against the sin of the image, is the matter of "And I will surely hide..." etc. — for that which was "I will surely hide" was because Israel turned to other gods, which was some degree of turning toward the image; and just as that turning was only outward, for appearances in public, so too this hiding was a hiding of the Face that was not essential, but only external. And concerning Mordecai, it says "pure myrrh (rosh mor deror)" — that his becoming a "head" was given to him because he was clean and pure of both these matters, and also did not bow beneath the captive; therefore before him others would bow and fall. Behold, this statement indicates that the two sins prevailed over us, and both this and that caused our misfortune. And there is yet another statement in the Gemara that also points directly to this matter — that there were two sins at that time, such that Mordecai was prepared to protect against the sin of the feast, and Esther against the sin of the image. This is in tractate Megillah, and this is its language: "Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani opened this exposition for this portion from here: 'Instead of the thorn-bush shall come up the cypress, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle' (Isaiah 55:13). 'Instead of the thorn-bush' — instead of the wicked Haman, who made himself into an idol, as it is written concerning it, 'in all the thorn-bushes and all the thorn-hedges' (Isaiah 7:19). 'Shall come up the cypress' — this is Mordecai, who is called the head of all the spices, as it says, 'Take for yourself spices, chief' (Exodus 30:23), which we render, 'pure myrrh.' 'And instead of the brier' — instead of the wicked Vashti, granddaughter of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, who burned the paneling of the House of our God, as it is written, 'its paneling of gold' (Song of Songs 3:10). 'Shall come up the myrtle' — this is Esther the righteous, who is called Hadassah, as it says, 'And he was foster-father to Hadassah' (Esther 2:7). 'And it shall be to Hashem for a name' — this is the reading of the Megillah; 'for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off' — these are the days of Purim." And it is worth noting that his intent seems to be that in place of Haman, who was great, Mordecai inherited his greatness, and was also given the house of Haman; and likewise Esther was made queen in place of Vashti. But surely this is difficult, for this is stated explicitly in the Megillah — so how could he open this exposition from a place that is merely an allusion, sealed, closed, and narrow compared to the explicit text? And also, why was Vashti alluded to by way of her grandfather, and not, like Haman, by a matter pertaining to herself? And furthermore, what is the point of saying, "and it shall be to Hashem for a name — this is the reading of the Megillah," etc. — what is its connection to what preceded? If it is to say that Mordecai and Esther acquired stature, and that He, blessed be He, also acquired for Himself a name thereby — this is a tasteless matter, without salt, for "what is the straw to the grain" (Jeremiah 23:28), and who can be compared to Hashem? And furthermore, why does he say, "these are the days of Purim" — that is, the reading of the Megillah, that it shall not be cut off, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said: all the Prophets and Writings will be nullified in the days of our Messiah, except for the reading of the Megillah, as it says, "and their memory shall not perish from their seed" (Esther 9:28)? Now, behold, Rashbi, of blessed memory, was troubled by our question — why were there two redeemers, Mordecai and Esther, when one would have sufficed, as in all other redemptions? He was troubled by a second question as well: why, in commemorating the miracle, do we perform two things — the reading of the Megillah, and also rejoicing and feasting — rather than following the practice of Chanukah, where a single thing alone is the commemoration of the miracle, namely lighting the candles? Rather, he says: there were two bodies of sin — one, through the wicked Haman, namely the sin of the feast that was performed; and second, the sin of the image, caused through Nebuchadnezzar — and therefore two redeemers were needed, each to protect against one of them; for from that verse it will be found written that there were two redeemers for the two bodies of sin, and which applied to this one and which to that one. And this is the meaning of: "instead of" Haman — who invited them and caused them to sin through the feast, as discussed, and who is called the "thorn-bush" — "shall come up the cypress," this is Mordecai, to protect against the deed of Haman; and this is the meaning of "instead of... shall come up the cypress," who is pure as the chief of spices, into whose midst the filth of the feast's defilement did not enter. And instead of the granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar, who caused us to sin through the sin of the image, the myrtle (Hadassah) would arise in her place, to protect against the deed of Nebuchadnezzar, her grandfather. And with this comes the answer to the second matter as well — that two kinds of commemoration of the miracle were needed: one, concerning that which pertains to Him, blessed be He — the sin of the image, which Nebuchadnezzar made in order to magnify his own name in the world, involving a desecration of Hashem's name, God forbid, as explained by us in its place — now, "and it shall be to Hashem for a name" — this is the reading of the Megillah, for this reading, this proclamation, is the publicizing of His name, blessed be He, the opposite of the intent of the image; and for the rectification of the feast, "shall not be cut off forever" — these are the days of Purim, days of feasting, drinking, and rejoicing, in exchange for that earlier feast. Behold, that this statement too indicates that there were two redeemers corresponding to the two bodies of sin. And so I think regarding the intent of the statement in Midrash Chazit, and this is its language: "R. Berechiah said: The Holy One, blessed be He, wrote the redemption of Israel in the Torah, as it is written, 'And if a stranger and sojourner with you becomes rich...' (Leviticus 25:47). 'The hand of the stranger and sojourner' — this is Haman, who became great and rich, and whose hand attained the ability to weigh out ten thousand talents of silver; and he is called a 'stranger' because he was of the seed of Amalek, and he was a 'sojourner' in Media and Persia. 'And your brother grows poor beside him' — these are Israel, who were poor and lowly; 'and is sold to the stranger and sojourner' — meaning that Ahasuerus sold them to Haman to destroy them, etc. 'or to the offshoot of a stranger's family' — Haman, who made himself into an idol, as it is written, 'bowing down and prostrating themselves to Haman' (Esther 3:2). 'After he is sold, there shall be redemption for him' — that the Holy One, blessed be He, redeemed them from his hand, and saved them from his decree, and ransomed them. 'One of his brothers shall redeem him' — this is Mordecai, of whom it is written, 'and was accepted by the multitude of his brethren' (Esther 10:3). 'or his uncle, or his uncle's son, shall redeem him' — this is Esther, who was the daughter of his uncle, and Israel was redeemed through her." And it is worth noting: what, accordingly, is the point of saying "with you" and also "beside him," rather than simply saying, "and if the hand of a stranger and sojourner prospers, and your brother grows poor, and is sold to him"? And also, why does it say "or to the offshoot," etc., which makes it appear that he was sold twice, when it was only once? And furthermore, it says that the Holy One redeemed them from his hand, saved them from his decree, and ransomed them — which appears to be one thing stated twice and even three times. And furthermore, after saying that the Holy One ransomed them, how could there be a need for "one of his brothers"? And furthermore, it says "or his uncle, or his uncle's son... this is Esther, who was the daughter of his uncle" — if so, it should have said only "his uncle's son shall redeem him"; why was "his uncle" mentioned, which is Mordecai himself? But behold, he (R. Berechiah) was troubled by the verse's mention of the hand of the stranger prospering — for by saying "if your brother grows poor and is sold to a stranger and sojourner," it is already known that the hand of the buyer has prospered; and likewise, its saying "and your brother grows poor beside him" is included in the earlier "if he grows poor." And furthermore, regarding the law, what difference does it make whether he is a "stranger" or a "sojourner," once he is already an idolater? If so, why does it say "stranger and sojourner," and also say "with you" and "beside him," which is superfluous — thus saying "with you" a second time? And likewise, after saying "one of his brothers shall redeem him," why does it say "or his uncle," etc., since the uncle is already included within the principle that "two hundred is included in one hundred"? And likewise, included in this, it also says "or his flesh-kin." Therefore he concludes that it is an allusion to the future, namely, that this exile was from Media — and who gave power to Haman, who was a stranger in the land, to rule over us, seeing that this was not the exile of Edom? To this he answers that the power belonging to Edom is to rule over us when we are poor in observance of the commandments, for that is the strap of our chastisement, as it is written, "and it shall come to pass when you shall break loose..." (Genesis 27:40), etc., as per the Targum's rendering: "when his children transgress the words of the Torah," etc. Therefore, wherever Edom/Amalek finds himself with us in that state, his hand prevails over us — and this is the meaning of "and if the hand... prospers" — this is Haman, who became great, etc., a stranger of the seed of Amalek, who was a sojourner in Media — meaning that his hand reaches and prevails by virtue of being "with us," even though he is a stranger in Media, the possessor of that exile, because he is a stranger of the seed of Amalek, the rod of our chastisement. And there is yet another reason: "if your brother grows poor beside him" — for our impoverishment regarding the commandments came about through our being "with him," for he led them to Ahasuerus's feast and caused them to sin — and this is the meaning of "and your brother grows poor beside him"; therefore, "and is sold to the stranger and sojourner" — for his hand prevailed over us from two perspectives: one, on account of what he did "with you," the sin of the feast, in that he fed it to you — and this is the meaning of "and is sold to the stranger and sojourner with you"; and also for another reason, from the perspective of idolatry, the image — and therefore we were sold "to the offshoot of a stranger's family," this is Haman, who made himself an idol resembling the image — and this is the meaning of "or to the offshoot," etc., referring to idolatry, as is known. And therefore it does not say "and to the offshoot," which would imply two buyers; rather, he is a single buyer from two perspectives, for each of which we were liable, whether from this one or from that one — for we were sold to Haman, in whose hand were two aspects: one, the sin of the feast, which came about through him; second, the sin of the image, the aspect of idolatry — therefore he who made himself an idol ruled over us. It follows that the sale was on account of two bodies of sin. Now, first the Holy One redeemed them from his hand, through their hanging him immediately in the month of Nisan; and even after his death, it was still possible that the letters of wrath would not be revoked, for "the writing which is written... may no man reverse" (Esther 8:8) — and this is the meaning of "and saved them from his decree"; and afterward He ransomed them with the blood of many slain, whom He gave in their place at the end of the year, on the day when the enemies of the Jews had hoped to have rule over them. And should you say: is not the Holy One uncompromising, so how were the two bodies of sin wiped away? To this he answers that the two redeemers bore them, protecting through their merit, in that they held fast in bringing Israel back in repentance — for concerning the sin of the feast, "one of his brothers" — this is Mordecai — "shall redeem him," for what his brothers, the people of Shushan, had sinned; and concerning the sin of the image, "or his uncle" — this is Mordecai — would have sufficed, or "or his uncle's son" of the redeemer — this is Esther; but why was he (Mordecai) also needed? Is it not answered by "or his flesh-kin" — that is, by their being flesh-kin, for "flesh" refers only to a wife — and there was a need for Esther to be his flesh-kin, in order to atone on behalf of Saul, as we shall explain, please God — this being so that there be no impediment to the redeemers' protection, on account of the harm having been caused by Saul, their ancestor, who caused Haman's coming into the world, as we shall explain, namely that the rectification needed to come through a woman; and since free choice is not precluded, it says, "or, if his hand attains sufficiency" — that Israel might repent and be redeemed of itself. Now, from all these, we have found good reason and understanding as to why He, blessed be He, established for us two redeemers, for each was "a man upon his own banner" (Numbers 2:2), to atone for the sins of Israel, each man according to his service and his burden, as discussed. But we still need to inquire and search out why Hashem did this — that is, why He did not give the power into Mordecai's hand to atone for both, since he was clean of both, and was a completely righteous man — and why Mordecai was singled out for the sin of the feast, and Esther for the sin of the image. And furthermore, even granting that two were needed, why was one male and one female, and not both men? And furthermore, what was Esther's transgression and what was her sin, that the rod of wickedness rested upon her lot, that she had to marry Ahasuerus, and how much more so troubling is it that her redemption appears as "a mitzvah that comes through a transgression"? And furthermore, why did she need to endanger herself, exposing her life to death, by coming to the king contrary to law, seeing that his one law was to put to death whoever came who was not called — and how much more so now does this trouble us, since the sin of the image was only outward, and yet she suffered more than Mordecai, who dealt with the matter of the feast. Now, behold, we have written that we had two evils, the sin of the image and the sin of the feast, and the instrument that inflicted vengeance upon us for both of them was Haman — for he spread a net for our feet through the feast, and he also had within his own bosom an idol resembling the sin of the image; therefore the reckoning of the two sins drew near to be from him and by his hand: the one, because that stumbling-block was under his direct authority (the feast); and the sin of the image, because like attracted its like and stirred it up. And also, had it not been for the repetition of the sin of the feast, the sin of the image would not have been reckoned then, for indeed there had been some measure of repentance in the hands of Israel; except that through the sin of the feast came the Accuser's indictment, saying that they were not coming before Him, blessed be He, in complete repentance regarding the image, as we proved above from the wording of the Midrash. It follows that the sin of the feast was what aroused the divine reckoning against the sin of the image. Now let us come to the matter: after Hashem made known to us all this — that through the sin of the feast, the reckoning of the sin of the image was set rolling, and that the sin of the feast was itself also his (Haman's) doing — it follows that the first cause of all this was Saul, the chosen of Hashem; for had he not left Agag, king of Amalek, alive for one night, they (Amalek) would almost, like Sodom, have been wiped out without a remnant. But on that night, as he lay there, a maidservant chanced upon him, and he came to her, and she conceived by him, and bore the forefather of that wicked Haman. It follows that this stumbling-block lay at the hand of Saul, for he brought about Haman's coming into the world. Therefore His counsel, blessed be He, was, as it were: "Behold, of the two bodies of sin in the hands of My children — the sin of the feast, there is none like Mordecai to rectify it," for indeed he was the one proclaiming that they should not go to the feast, for the deed was evil in his eyes, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, and he alone sanctified the Name of Heaven in that matter; therefore, who is like him to atone for that sin? And likewise, regarding the image, he was alive at that time, during the exile of Nebuchadnezzar, and he was pure of that sin; but behold, his strength was too weak to bear two sins upon his shoulders in order to protect Israel, since, after all, the entire blame rested upon his father's house, namely Saul, through whom Haman came into the world; therefore another redeemer was needed to help him, "for two are better" (Ecclesiastes 4:9), so that it would apply to each of them respectively, and each one would protect against one sin. And the counsel of the Holy One of Israel was that the second redeemer be a woman, to rectify the guilt of Saul, the cause, so that it would be measure for measure — for he was the one through whom a woman came to be joined with Agag, who cast defilement into her, bringing forth from her the filth of his uncleanness; therefore, from his (Saul's) seed, a woman would be joined to Ahasuerus, and he would cast defilement into her. And just as Israel was endangered through what he set in motion by bringing Haman into the world, so she too would be endangered and would expose her life to death in order to save them. And therefore she became queen just as he (Saul) did — she hid herself so that she would not be taken to the king, like Saul, who hid among the baggage — as we shall explain concerning the intent of the coming verses, please God. And with this let us come to the explanation of the verse before us, applying understanding and insight to the difficulty our Rabbis of blessed memory raised: the verse calls him "a Jew," and calls him "a Benjamite" — in addition to what we have written above. Now, I heard in the name of the Rama (of Fano) that the verse gives the reason for calling him "a Jew" in saying "who had been exiled," etc., "with Jeconiah king of Judah" — that is to say, he is called "a Jew" because he was exiled with the king of Judah. But this is still difficult, for the very foundation of this is refuted: let it simply say from the outset "a Benjamite man," without changing his description such that it would afterward need to give a reason for the matter. But it is possible, according to our approach, to offer something close to this in giving the reason for the change of description — namely, that because he was from the exile of Judah, as it says afterward, "who had been exiled," etc., he is called "a Jew." And the meaning of the verse is what we have written: as we know, any unspecified "men" or "man" (ish) in Scripture denotes a righteous person, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said regarding the spies, of whom it is said, "all of them were men" (Numbers 13:3) — meaning they were righteous at that time. And the matter is: "a certain Jewish man" — that is, he was a righteous man in being called "a Jew," meaning that during the exile of Judah, through Nebuchadnezzar, he did not sin regarding his image; and he was also a man in Shushan the capital — a distinguished and righteous man who did not sin regarding the feast, the sin of Shushan — in such a way that he was fit to redeem Israel through his merit regarding these two sins. And this is the meaning of "a certain Jewish man" regarding the first sin, and "was in Shushan" regarding the second — for there too he was a distinguished and righteous man, clean of the sin of Shushan. But against this, the end of his lineage is "son of Kish," the father of Saul — that is to say, because he was "son of Kish," the blame for the entire evil of Haman hangs upon his father's house, and it is upon him to rectify it. So then, how could Mordecai's merit protect against everything, when he has a share of liability on account of his father's house, and is, in a sense, himself bound — how could he release also another? And this is the meaning of "son of Kish"; and should one say, let us seek someone else — there is none like him, for this, in addition to his being clean of these two sins, namely, that he is "a Benjamite man," fit to fell Amalek by his own hand — for Amalek falls only by the hand of the sons of Rachel's sons, for indeed "the young ones of the flock shall drag them away" (Jeremiah 49:20) — and this is the meaning of "a Benjamite man." Therefore He, blessed be He, saw this and rectified everything, as will come in the text, for it says, "and he was foster-father to Hadassah," etc. Now, first the verse needed to explain to us three things: first, at what time he is called "a Jewish man," seeing that he is also "a Benjamite man"; second, how he was a righteous man regarding the sin of the image; third, how He, blessed be He, arranged that the redemption would come from Mordecai's side, and would be a complete healing over the harm caused by his father's house. And regarding the first, it says "who had been exiled," etc. — that is, what we said, that he is "a Jew," is by virtue of his having been exiled with Jeconiah king of Judah; and what we said, that he was at that time righteous regarding the sin of the image, is alluded to by "whom Nebuchadnezzar had exiled," and so forth — this accords with what our Rabbis of blessed memory said, that he was exiled twice: once with Jeconiah, and the second time when Nebuchadnezzar exiled him at the time of the Destruction. And it is worth knowing why it informed us that he was exiled twice; but this is to indicate that he is pure of the sin of the image — for the image took place in the second exile, some years after the Destruction, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said. And with this it says: he "had been exiled with Jeconiah" in the first exile, when they were all righteous — "the craftsmen and the smiths," etc. (2 Kings 24:14) — he remained in that same state of righteousness when Nebuchadnezzar exiled him afterward — for just as was his righteousness in the exile of Jeconiah, so was he in the exile of Nebuchadnezzar at the time of the image, for he did not sin regarding it, in such a way that he too was fit to protect against this. But what could be done, since he was "son of Kish," upon whose father's house rested the blame for the sin of the feast and the arousal of the sin of the image? Therefore it would be rectified by "and he was foster-father to Hadassah," etc. — for she would help us, in that she would bear the burden of the sin of the image — for He, blessed be He, brought it about that Esther would be taken to the king and would reign, even though she had hidden herself, similar to Saul at the time of his becoming king, and she bore the sin of her father's house and atoned for it, in such a way that the harm caused did not prevent the merit of both of them from providing protection, as explained in all that is written above. Our Rabbis of blessed memory offered yet another resolution regarding his being called "a Jew" — that it is because David, peace be upon him, was the cause of Mordecai's birth: for had David killed Shimei, as Abishai proposed, he would not have fathered the one who fathered Mordecai. It follows that David, who was of Judah, caused Mordecai's existence; therefore he is called "a Jew" after him. And it is possible that this too is not lacking textual support — namely: even though Jair was Mordecai's father, Jair was not directly the son of Shimei, for there were more than three generations from Shimei to Mordecai; but there is no doubt that the phrase "son of Shimei, son of Kish" is stated in order to be expounded, namely: behold, Saul was the cause of Haman's being born and of Israel becoming liable through the feast, and David was the cause of the birth of the one who would save us from that trouble, as stated. And this is the meaning of "a certain Jewish man" — that is, related to Judah, on account of whom he came to be in Shushan; for were it not for the one alluded to by the word "Jewish," this man would not have been in Shushan. And how did this come about, and how is he called "Jewish"? To this it answers: "and his name was... son of Shimei" — that is, being of the seed of Shimei, it is fitting he be called "Jewish," for it was one of Judah (David) who left Shimei alive. And should you say, why was it necessary that the redeemer be specifically Mordecai, such that David had to leave Shimei alive for this? To this he gives two reasons: one, that he too is of the seed of Kish — that is, so that the one descended from Kish would come and rectify what the son of Kish, Saul, had perverted; second, that he is "a Benjamite man," resembling Benjamin, who did not bow to Esau — for this was the answer of the king's servants regarding why he did not bow to Haman: because he was a descendant of Benjamin, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said. And it states the lineage of his being "a Benjamite man" as manifest in the two exiles, in which he did not bend the knee or bow down to anything other than the God of Israel — and this is the meaning of "who had been exiled," etc. — meaning that he was "a Benjamite man" who kept his fidelity in the exile of Jeconiah and in the exile of Nebuchadnezzar at the Destruction; and this is the meaning of "whom Nebuchadnezzar exiled," as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, that even then he kept his fidelity and did not bow to the image. And should you say, on the contrary, that being from Kish, he would lack the strength to protect against what his ancestor had corrupted — to this it answers, "and he was foster-father," etc. — namely, that he has "a helper corresponding to him" (Genesis 2:18), the merit of Esther as well; for that reason Esther would join with him — and this is the meaning of "and he was foster-father," etc.: the two of them would come together as one against the two matters that had caused the evil, as explained above. Or, along these lines: "there was a certain Jewish man," alone, in Shushan the capital — for the rest did not keep their Jewishness. And why is he called "Jewish" rather than simply "a righteous man"? Because he is "son of Shimei," whom David of Judah saved; and this had to be, because he is "son of Kish," and there was a need for someone of his own lineage to rectify what he had perverted. But he is also "a Benjamite man" — for on one hand he is a man, and there was a need for there to be a woman as well, to correspond to the deed of Saul, as mentioned above, that he brought it about that Agag cast defilement into a maidservant joined to him, from whom came forth that offshoot, namely Haman; therefore it was fitting that a woman of his (Saul's) lineage should have Ahasuerus cast defilement into her; and on the other hand, he is "Benjamite," resembling Benjamin, who did not bow to Esau, and he kept this fidelity both when he was exiled in the exile of Jeconiah, and when he was exiled a second time by Nebuchadnezzar at the Destruction, when the sin of the image occurred — he was "Benjamite" in that he did not bend the knee or bow down. And if so, there is none like him to protect against the sin of the image; therefore, "and he was foster-father to Hadassah," etc., and she was taken to Ahasuerus as a wife, and she too was redeemed, as discussed.

Questions: "a Jewish man" — one must ask: it should have said "and there was a Jewish man in Shushan," so why does it recount his lineage? "a Jewish man" — Scripture comes to tell the righteousness of Mordecai and Esther, how in three periods she was completely coerced and taken against her will: (1) the first period, when she was taken from her house; (2) the second period, during the twelve months that she sat under the charge of Hegai; (3) the third period, when she was taken to the king's palace. Now [the text] begins to relate from the beginning of her taking from her house, that Mordecai hid her for a long time — even though there was danger in this, for the king's order was certainly that whoever had a beautiful daughter must bring her, and one who transgressed the king's order — the law was to put him to death — and nevertheless he did not hand her over willingly. And [Scripture] takes into account here eight matters. (1) "a Jewish man was in Shushan the capital" — for had Mordecai dwelt in another province, the danger would not have been so great, for he could have said that he had not heard of the king's order; but he was in Shushan, and that was the place of the gathering, and it was known to all the people of the city. And even had he dwelt in Shushan only recently, he would have had an excuse that he had not yet heard [the order]. Therefore it says "a Jewish man was already" in Shushan, that he had dwelt there from days of old, and thereby his head was forfeit to the king. (2) "whose name was Mordecai" — for had he been a lowly and despised man, he would have had a pretext that he was ashamed to hand over his daughter to the king, knowing the lowliness of his own rank; therefore it says that he was a man known by his name, his lineage, and the name of his tribe, for honor and glory, and moreover that he was of royal seed, from the sons of Saul.

"a certain Jew" (verse 5). In the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 6:2): "There was a certain Jew in Shushan the castle" — "a man" (ish) teaches that Mordecai was equal in his generation to Moses in his generation, as it is written (Numbers 12:3), "Now the man Moses was very meek." Just as Moses stood in the breach, as it is written (Psalms 106:23), "And He said that He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen stood before Him in the breach, etc.," so too Mordecai, as it is written (below 10:3), "seeking the good for his people" — thus far [the Midrash]. The explanation: Moses is called "ish" because the term "ish" is said of one who is extremely quick and vigorous [to act], and when a single breach occurs and he stands against it with his own strength, he is called "ish" — just as Mordecai did in standing in the breach — therefore he is called "a certain Jew" (ish Yehudi). And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 6:2): "a certain Jew" — why was he called "Yehudi," when in fact he was a Benjamite (Yemini)? Rather, it is because he proclaimed the unity of the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the face of all who came into the world, as it is written (below 3:2), "he would not bow down nor prostrate himself to him." And because he proclaimed the unity of the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, he is called "Yehudi," meaning "yechidi" (a singular, unique one). The explanation: the letter heh in the name "Yehudi" stands in place of a chet, and it becomes "yechidi" — one who proclaims the unity of His blessed Name and denies idolatry is a yechidi, meaning that he alone proclaimed His unity against the entire world. And so it is stated in the Gemara (Megillah 13a), that he was called "Yehudi" because he denied idolatry. And some say that he was equal in his generation to Abraham; just as Abraham our father gave himself over into the fiery furnace and thereby made mankind recognize the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written (Genesis 12:5), "and the souls that they made in Charan," so too in Mordecai's days mankind came to recognize the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written (below 8:17), "and many from among the peoples of the land became Jews (mityahadim)." And it appears that "some say" also came to explain the word "Yehudi" — for otherwise, what would be the point of saying "and some say"? And it says that because he sanctified the Name of Heaven, he was called by the name "Yehudi." The explanation of this: the name "Yehudah" contains within it the four letters of His great Name. And one who sanctifies His Name in public deserves to bear in his own name the unique Name. So we say in Sotah (36b): Yehudah, who sanctified His Name in public, had [the whole tribe] called entirely after his name. Therefore Mordecai was called "Yehudi" because he sanctified His blessed Name — this being the same as what was said above, that it was because he denied idolatry*. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 6:2): "and his name was Mordecai" — for the wicked, [their actual] name precedes the word "his name": "Naval was his name" (I Samuel 25:25), "Sheva ben Bichri was his name" (II Samuel 20:21). But for the righteous, the word "his name" precedes [their actual name]: "and his name was Manoach" (Judges 13:2), "and his name was Saul" (I Samuel 9:2), "and his name was Elkanah" (I Samuel 1:1), "and his name was Boaz" (Ruth 2:1), "and his name was Mordecai" — because they resemble their Creator, as it is written (Exodus 6:3), "and My name, Hashem" — thus far [the Midrash]. And the explanation of this: the name (shem) in every instance indicates the essence (mahut); [man] is called "Adam," and this indicates his essence, that he was created from the ground (adamah). And so every single name indicates the essence. And for the righteous person, the word "name" comes first, because the existence and essence of the righteous person do not depart from the order that Hashem, may He be blessed, ordained in creation for what man should be. Therefore, regarding the righteous it is written "and his name was Mordecai" — because his essence conforms to the order of creation that Hashem, may He be blessed, created, and so the word "name" comes first. But the wicked person has no [fixed] existence within the order of the world such that one could say his essence comes first, for on the contrary, the wicked person departs from the order of creation. Therefore, for the wicked, [the actual name] precedes the word "his name," because his essence is not found within the order of the world until the wicked one actually comes into being — only then does he have an essence, namely his wickedness*. But before he comes into being, no essence is found for him. Only the righteous person, who does not depart from the order of the world — therefore his essence, which conforms to the order of the world, is found beforehand. Understand these words very well, for they are clear matters. And in the Gemara (Megillah 12b): "a certain Jew, etc." — whichever way [you look at it, there is a difficulty]: if it comes to state his lineage*, let it trace the lineage all the way back to Benjamin the son of Jacob — why single out these three [ancestors] and no more? It was taught: all of them are named for [what they did]. "Ben Yair" (son of Yair) — a son who illuminated (he'ir) the eyes of Israel through his prayer. "Ben Shimei" (son of Shimei) — a son whose prayer [Hashem] heard (shama). "Ben Kish" (son of Kish) — a son who knocked (hikish) on the gates of mercy and they were opened for him. [Scripture] calls him "Yehudi" and calls him "Yemini" — it calls him "Yehudi," implying he descends from Judah, and it calls him "Yemini," implying he descends from Benjamin. Rav Nachman said: Mordecai was crowned by virtue of his own noble character. Rava bar Kahana and Rabbah bar bar Chanah* said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: his father was from Benjamin and his mother was from Judah. And the Rabbis say: the [two] families were quarreling with one another; the family of Judah says, "We are the cause that Mordecai was born, for David did not kill Shimei ben Gera." And the family of Benjamin says, "He comes from me." Rava said: it was the Congregation of Israel who spoke to both sides, [saying]: "See what Judah did for me, and what Benjamin repaid me. What did Judah do for me? That David did not kill Shimei ben Gera (II Samuel 19:24)" — for had Shimei ben Gera not existed and had David killed him, Mordecai would not have been born, [Mordecai] of whom Haman was jealous, and [Haman] caused distress to Israel. "And what did Benjamin repay me? That Saul did not kill Agag" — for had Agag not existed and had Saul killed him, Haman would not have been born, who was jealous of him [Mordecai] and caused him and Israel distress. And Rabbi Yochanan said: in fact he does descend from Benjamin, and why is he called "Yehudi"? Because he denied idolatry, for anyone who denies idolatry is called a "Yehudi," as it is said (Daniel 3:12), "There are certain Jews (Yehudin) whom you have appointed, etc." And the explanation of this: for this redemption from the wicked Haman involved two things for Israel — the first, that the enemy should not rule over them; the second, that they should rule over their enemy. And among the tribes, some are singular and disposed toward one matter, and some are disposed toward another. And Judah is disposed to prevail over the enemy, as it is written (Genesis 49:8), "your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies," and it is written (cf. Judges 1:2), "Judah shall go up first." If so, Judah is more disposed toward this, to overpower the enemy. And this tribe, among the rest of the tribes, is comparable to the head among the other limbs, and the head is uppermost. For this reason Judah is disposed to rise up* and prevail over the enemy. And the tribe of Benjamin is disposed toward endurance, that its enemies should not rule over it. This is because Benjamin is the smallest of the tribes, and the smallest has the greatest endurance. And you should understand this matter well — for there is nothing smaller among the elements of the world than the earth, which is the smallest element, and it is said (Ecclesiastes 1:4), "but the earth endures forever" — and this matter has been explained in several places. And just as the head is disposed to be greatest over everything, so is the heart, in which is the life-force, which is the endurance of man. Therefore these two tribes were comparable to the head and the heart of man. And [the Rabbis] hold that in that it says "a certain Jew" (ish Yehudi), and at the end of the verse it is written "a Benjamite" (ish Yemini), these two names come to indicate the salvation of Israel; for in that Mordecai was "ish Yehudi," he had the disposition to rule over the enemy. For King David, who was king of Judah (II Samuel 2:4), gave life to Shimei ben Gera (II Samuel 19:24), even though he was not deserving of it on his own account. And all this was because King David was disposed to rule over the enemy and the foe; therefore David was the cause that Shimei was not put to death, so that Mordecai — who would rule over the enemy — should descend from him. And it says "ish Yemini" because Benjamin is disposed to bring forth one who has the disposition that the enemy should not rule over him. This is what the Rabbis hold. But Rava holds that the redemption came only from the side of all Israel [collectively], who were deserving of this redemption, and not from the side of the tribes — for from the side of the tribes there is [actually] a predisposition toward the trouble. This is from the side of Judah, which is the tribe to whom dominion properly belongs, and which wants to rule; and when someone else wants to rule over it, this it does not want. As was the case in this very incident: because Mordecai did not want to be subservient to Haman — as our Sages said (Megillah 15b) that they called Mordecai "a slave sold for the price of a loaf of bread" — Haman therefore became jealous of him and wanted to rule over him. And this is from the side of his being "ish Yehudi," for dominion over another belongs to the Jew [of the tribe of Judah]. And from this it follows that, correspondingly, [Haman] too wanted to rule over him. And likewise from the side of his being "ish Yemini" — since he is the smallest of the tribes, the smallest does not have so much dominion. Therefore, even though he was "ish Yehudi," and from the side of this tribe there is here a disposition toward dominion, nevertheless from the side of his being "ish Yemini," the smallest of the tribes, there is not so much dominion here. Therefore Saul, who was "ish Yemini," did not rule over Agag so as to put him to death, but rather spared his life, and did not overpower him completely so as to kill him. And all this was because he was from the smallest of the tribes, and was not fully disposed toward dominion; therefore Saul relinquished his claim to honor. And had Mordecai not been "ish Yemini," Haman would not have prevailed at all. Therefore it is written "ish Yehudi" and it is written "ish Yemini," to state the cause of the trouble that arose from the tribes: for from the side of Mordecai's being "ish Yehudi," he did not want to be subservient to the enemy; and from the side of Benjamin, the smallest of the tribes, he did not overpower the enemy Agag, and spared his life. Therefore, from the side of the tribes, on the contrary — it was through them that Haman's opposition came about — and the redemption is from the side of Hashem, may He be blessed, who redeemed them from his hand. This is Rava's view. And as for what Rabbi Yochanan said, that he is called "Yehudi" because he denied idolatry, this has already been explained above. "there was in Shushan the castle" (verse 5). As to why it was necessary to say that he was "in Shushan the castle" — this comes to say that Mordecai was a distinct man, recognized throughout the entire capital city. Even though he was among the [gentile] nations, and Shushan was a great capital city, and there the officials and great ones of the kingdom were gathered in great numbers, nevertheless Mordecai was recognized and known. And all this is because Mordecai* was disposed toward the redemption, as is alluded to in the word "there was" (hayah), as we said above — therefore he was successful even beforehand. And so you find with Moses, that he too was disposed toward the redemption, and this sign was seen in him, that he was disposed toward the redemption. And for this reason he is called "ish," in the sense of importance, for that is the meaning of the term "ish" everywhere, and this is clear. And above we explained that Mordecai is called "ish," just as Moses is called "ish" (Numbers 12:3), because Mordecai is the completeness of Israel and their form, just as the man (ish) is the form of the woman. And just as Moses was the form of Israel, so was Mordecai the form of Israel, as we explained above. "a Benjamite" (ish Yemini) — Rashi (here) explains that although Scripture called him above "ish Yehudi," this is because he was among the exiles whom Judah had been exiled with, so that all of them were called by the name "Yehudah," because it was the tribe of Judah that was exiled [together with him]. But our Sages (Megillah 13a; Esther Rabbah 6:2) found this difficult — Scripture had no need to say "Yehudi" at all; rather it should have said simply "there was a man in Shushan, etc." Is it because he was exiled within the exile of Judah that it should call him "Yehudi"? For it calls him by the name "Yemini" right here — why then call him after the name of another tribe for no reason? Therefore they expounded it as has been explained above.

Questions: why does the text elaborate the account that he was exiled from Jerusalem? "who had been carried away" — (3) his sin was greater in that he was one of the exiles, for it is known that if a foreigner who shelters under the king's protection out of kindness transgresses and offends against the king's law, he is punished more severely than if one of the native citizens of the land were to sin. And also he could not offer the excuse that, precisely because he was one of the exiles, his heart did not dare to give his daughter to the king, for the exiles are for the most part despised. Therefore it says that he was from the exile that had been exiled together with Jeconiah, for at that time the officers of Judah and the glory of Zion were exiled, and these were always persons of importance.

"who had been carried away etc." (verse 6) — He wrote this so that you should not say that he [Mordechai] left the Land of Israel of his own volition, for such a thing would not be fitting for a righteous man. Concerning this it says "who had been carried away," meaning that he did not leave the land of his own accord. And so that it should not present a difficulty — since Mordechai was destined for the redemption at the end, one might think it would have been fitting that he himself not go into exile at all — concerning this it says "who had been exiled with Jeconiah the king, etc." For exiled together with Jeconiah were "the craftsman and the smith" (II Kings 24:14), since once they would open their mouths [to teach], everyone else became like the deaf [unable to dispute them], and once they closed [their mouths, concluding], no one else could then open [to reopen the matter] (Gittin 88a). Therefore he [Mordechai] was exiled in order to be among the men of Torah, for he did not wish to separate himself from the Torah. And so that you should not mistakenly say that this exile was to Shushan — since Mordechai was [found] in Shushan, and so [one might think] he had been exiled to Shushan — therefore it states that Nebuchadnezzar exiled them to Babylon, and it was from Babylon that he came to Shushan. And all this comes to teach that Mordechai was close to the throne, [being] with Nebuchadnezzar, and when his kingdom was nullified by the king of Persia and Media, the advisors and sages of (-Nebuchadnezzar-) [Cyrus] took them with him to Shushan.

As a daughter. Our Rabbis explained, “for a house” [i.e., לְבַת=לְבַיִת, meaning, as a wife. — Notes: (8) Maseches Megillah 13a. Apparently בת here does not mean [lit.] daughter, because Esther was not his child.

"of beautiful form" (yefat to'ar) — "to'ar" [form] refers to every limb, while "mareh" [appearance] refers to the overall impression being good, or [alternatively] to the eye [in particular]. And there is a midrashic interpretation that she was "yerakroket" (of a greenish complexion), relating to [the name] Hadassah [myrtle]. "as a daughter" (le-vat) — had she not been a virgin, Mordecai would not have risked being so close to her, for one may not rely on a miracle occurring. Perhaps there is a midrashic reading of "le-vayit" [for a household], [meaning] that it was already in his mind, on account of her beauty, to take her as a wife.

It is fitting to consider carefully why the verse informs us of all this: that he raised her; that Hadassah is Esther; and likewise says 'his uncle's daughter' — for if he took her to be a daughter to him, why is this stated twice? Not only that, but at first the matter is stated more emphatically, saying 'his uncle's daughter,' and afterward it says only that he took her to himself as a daughter. And why, too, does it inform us that she had neither father nor mother, and then also say 'and when her father and mother died,' which is superfluous — for it would have sufficed to say, 'she had neither father nor mother; [therefore] he took her,' etc. But behold, anyone who hears this and does not know the counsel of the Holy One of Israel will find his heart souring, saying: What is this — that Esther was taken to the king and he made her queen in place of Vashti? For surely the matter cannot escape a dilemma: either she was righteous or she was not. If we say she was righteous, and that her merit and the merit of Israel brought her to the throne in order to preserve Israel alive for a great deliverance — behold, at this every heart should tremble, for surely it resembles 'a mitzvah that comes through a transgression,' since she was married to Ahasuerus, and her royalty was to her like a fat tail with a thorn stuck in it [a good thing marred by a grievous flaw]. All the more so if one considers what God did to Pharaoh and to Abimelech on account of Sarai — for if Esther too was righteous, where are all the wonders He performed for Sarah? Why did He not do the same for Esther, so that the rod of the wicked should not rest upon the lot of the righteous woman? And if we say that she was not righteous — and the proof is that this was not hidden from the eyes of the people, for otherwise, how could it be said of this matter: how was an orphaned girl from among the exiles sought out and found? Or how did they deem it fitting to take her among those gathered, if not because she was not 'all glorious, a king's daughter within,' in the innermost chambers of her house (Psalms 45:14), but rather was one who publicized her beauty and fair appearance before the eyes of every passerby, until the king's officials saw her and praised her to him, and 'the woman was taken to the king's house'? All the more so now, since the king was proclaiming his decree by herald, and the young women were being gathered to Hegai, and she, upon hearing of it, came among those who came — if so, then it was not out of her righteousness that she acted thus, going to be married to Ahasuerus. And if this be so, is it not then to be regarded as strange that a miracle should be performed through her, seeing that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not perform a miracle for a falsehood? However, there is no doubt that, since He, may He be blessed, showed us all the great things that God did through her, we are all bound to acknowledge that she was a completely righteous woman — all the more so since Hashem gave her dominion over that vast kingdom. And whereas we have found — we have seen — all that God did to Pharaoh and to Abimelech on account of Sarai, yet He did not do so for Esther, to keep her from falling to the lot of Ahasuerus; and all the more so according to what our Rabbis of blessed memory said, that Esther remained the wife of Mordecai even while she was in the king's house — which is exactly the same matter as Sarah our mother. Now this, I believe, is what our Rabbis of blessed memory intended in the sweetness of their rhetorical expression, when they said: Why did she reign over 127 provinces? Rather, let Esther, the granddaughter of Sarah — who lived 127 years — come and reign over 127 provinces. Now these words appear to be mere pleasantries, but I do not think so, [coming] from the mouths of holy men such as our Rabbis of blessed memory. Rather, it is to be understood by paying attention: did Sarah not have a [natural] daughter, that Esther should be reckoned to her as one? Surely all the daughters of Israel are her daughters — so how can it be said that she was 'the granddaughter of Sarah'? And moreover, what connection is there between the reign and the years? Rather, it is this: it was difficult for them [to reconcile] how the One who performed miracles for Sarah, so that no impurity would be cast upon her, did not do the same also for Esther — for on this account people would judge her by the standard of unfit women, [reasoning] that she was not righteous and fit, for had she been so, a miracle would have been done for her in this matter, as it was for Sarah. Therefore they said: behold, she is to be reckoned a daughter of Sarah, for she was righteous — and the proof is that not for nothing did Hashem give her dominion over 127 provinces, matching the number of Sarah's years, if not to liken her to Sarah. And this is the reason we wrote, that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not perform a miracle for a falsehood: to make her reign in a manner beyond nature, seeing that the hint of her dominion, corresponding to the number of Sarah's years — from which our difficulty arose — was meant to hint that this woman is comparable to Sarah; for so it was, that in being joined to Ahasuerus she was like Sarah, who was not defiled. For just as the fact that they had no power over Sarah served the salvation of Israel — as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, that in the merit of Sarah, who fenced herself off from illicit relations, all the women in Egypt merited to fence themselves off, which is one of the things for which Israel was redeemed, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, this being [the meaning of] 'a garden locked,' etc. (Song of Songs 4:12) — so too, the fact that Esther was taken served the salvation of Israel, and this is by the same reasoning we wrote concerning the matter of Saul. And this is [the meaning of the Sages' words,] 'a daughter of Sarah' — that is to say, she is to be reckoned a daughter to Sarah, even though her situation was the opposite of Sarah's, for this corresponds to that; they are equal for the good, since this did not happen to her from a lack of merit. And to establish this matter conclusively, the verse comes and says: Look and see that she was righteous, and that the matter came forth from Hashem — for behold, he who was a great righteous Jewish man, as has been said, was the one who raised Hadassah. All the more so in light of what our Rabbis of blessed memory said, that she was called Hadassah because she was righteous, for the righteous are called 'myrtles' (hadassim), as it is said (Zechariah 1:8), 'and he was standing among the myrtles.' This comes to say: behold, when a righteous man raises one who is not righteous of himself, it helps make him righteous — how much more so when he raises and guides one who is already righteous of himself, for through his upbringing the piety of the one raised together with him is doubled. And this is [the meaning of] 'and he was raising Hadassah' — for since he was the one raising her, and she too was Hadassah, righteous of herself, certainly her fitness was doubled. And I think, along these same lines, regarding what our Rabbis of blessed memory mentioned as to why she was called Esther — that the gentiles in the king's house used to call her so, after the name Istahar — that in light of this it may be said that she was called Hadassah as a description of her righteousness, in respect of its constancy. For behold, it is the way of trees to be lush only in summer and not in winter, but the myrtle is moist and lush both in summer and in winter; and by this it is saying: behold now, the righteousness of Esther — that not only while being raised by Mordecai was she in her freshness and fitness, but she was 'Hadassah,' like this myrtle, which is fresh even in winter. In such a way that even when she is [called] Esther — that is, even when she was called Esther, after the name Istahar, which was after she was married to Ahasuerus, which is like the days of winter to the tree — her fragrance did not change, for even then she is called 'his uncle's daughter,' resembling him. And should you say: is it possible that her heart was not lifted up by her royalty, to kick away her merit? Do not wonder at this, for behold, she had neither father nor mother, and she was raised in humility. This is what we are accustomed to explain regarding [the teaching] 'whoever fulfills the Torah out of poverty will in the end fulfill it out of wealth' (Avot 4:9) — that is, one who begins his righteousness in poverty and humility, even should he grow wealthy, will not kick [rebel]. So too here: [the verse] says that she had neither father nor mother, and her merit began in humility, therefore she maintained it [even] out of wealth. And should you say: what will you answer to our earlier objection, that if she had been 'all glorious, a king's daughter within,' how did her beauty become known? To this [the verse] answers: know, then, that because she was a girl of beautiful form and fair appearance, Mordecai was concerned lest she be exposed, her beauty seen, and she be desired; therefore, immediately upon the death of her father and mother, Mordecai took her to himself as a daughter, so that she would not be, heaven forbid, a 'yatzanit' [a woman who goes about outside], lest she be seized. And should you ask: if so, then how did they come to know her beauty and take her? This can only be explained thus: when the king's word and decree were heard, and the fitting young women were gathered by the king's officers, her ear heard of it, and she too went among those who came, to show her beauty, for she saw that she was fit and would find favor in their eyes — or [she went] to present herself to the king's officers, for otherwise, from where and by what means would the king's officials have seen her, such that 'the woman was taken to the king's house'? And if so, then this detracts from the measure of her merit, in that she put herself forward to lie with Ahasuerus — all the more so according to our Rabbis of blessed memory who say that she was the wife of Mordecai's bosom [even in the palace]. Therefore it [the verse] says: behold, when the king's word and decree were heard, and also when the young women were gathered, etc. — all of them who were summoned came [of their own accord]; not so was Esther's portion, heaven forbid, for she did not come [willingly], but rather 'she was taken' — by force, from the place of her honor — for it was from Hashem that they found a way to learn of her beauty. And not only that, but of all the young women who were gathered to Hegai, there was doubt, and not one of them was regarded, saying, 'this one is fit for the king' — except in the case of Esther. And this the wording of the verse points to precisely: that regarding all the young women it says, 'and when the young women were gathered to Shushan the capital, to the hand of Hegai' (Esther 2:8), and it is not said of them 'to the king's house, to the hand of Hegai,' as it is said of Esther, 'and Esther was taken to the king's house, to the hand of Hegai' (Esther 2:8). Rather, it is that all the [other] young women were taken in doubt, but this one — from the outset, 'she was taken to the king's house' — they took her with clear intent, that she [was destined] for the king's house, saying that she indeed was fit for the king, following the way of our Rabbis of blessed memory regarding 'and they praised her to Pharaoh' (Genesis 12:15), who said, 'this one is fit for the king' — except that she was given into the hand of Hegai, to be given her cosmetic treatments, to prepare her to come before the king.

Questions: the repetition of language, and also, it is out of order in that it interrupts in the middle with what it says, "and the maiden was of beautiful form." "and he brought up" — (4) that it was known to all that he was the one raising her, and also Esther was known by name, to the point that she was called Hadassah on account of her good character traits, and also she was his uncle's daughter, and so he was the one appointed responsible for her, and she was under his authority — and from all these angles there was great danger to him if it became known that he was hiding her from the king. (5) for she had neither father nor mother — and so it was only from him that they would seek a reckoning, not from anyone else. (6) "and the maiden was of beautiful form" — and he would have no atonement at all if they found that he had hidden so beautiful a maiden, and he could not say that the maiden was grown and that he assumed she would go to the king's house of her own accord, for when her father and mother died, Mordecai took her to himself as a daughter, and it is impossible that she would go out without his permission.

"And he brought her up, Hadassah, that is, Esther" (verse 7). (Megillah 13a) Scripture calls her "Esther," and calls her "Hadassah." It was taught: Rabbi Meir says, her name was "Esther," and why was she called "Hadassah"? After the righteous, who are called "hadassim" (myrtles). And so it says (Zechariah 1:8), "and he stood among the myrtle trees that were in the bottom." Rabbi Yehudah says, her name was "Hadassah," and why was she called "Esther"? Because she used to hide (masteret) her words. And so it says (below, verse 20), "Esther did not tell of her birth or her people." Rabbi Nechemiah says, her name was "Hadassah," and why was she called "Esther"? Because the nations of the world used to call her after Estahar (the moon). Ben Azzai says, her name was "Esther," and why was she called "Hadassah"? Because she was of medium stature (beinonit), neither tall nor short, but medium like a myrtle. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah says, [Esther] was greenish (yerakrakot), and a thread of grace was drawn over her. "For she had neither father nor mother" — but it is written, "at the death of her father and her mother"; why do I need this? Rav Chisda said: while her mother was pregnant with her, her father died; when her mother gave birth to her, her mother died. And it appears that they expounded thus, because "and at the death of her father and her mother" is superfluous (yitur), and there would have been no need to write it. Therefore he expounded, "at the death of her father" — meaning, at the time he became her father, and this is [what is meant by] "while she was pregnant, her father died," for at that time he became her father. And [she became] her mother's [daughter] at the time she was born, for at the time of the pregnancy, since the child had not yet separated from her, she was not yet called "her mother." This is not so with the father, for as soon as she conceived from him, he is called "her father." And regarding the mother, we hold that "a fetus is [regarded as] the thigh of its mother" (Gittin 23b), and so when she gave birth to her, her mother died. "Mordecai took her for a daughter [le-vat]" (Megillah 13a). It was taught in the school of Rabbi Meir: do not read "le-vat" (for a daughter), but "le-vayit" (for a household/wife). And so it says (2 Samuel 12:3), "but the poor man had nothing except one small ewe lamb, which he had bought and reared; and it grew up together with him and with his children; it ate of his morsel, drank from his cup, and lay in his bosom, and was to him ke-vat (like a daughter)" — [there too, do not read] "ke-vat" but "ke-vayit" (like a household/wife). So too here, "le-vayit." The meaning of this — what he said, that she was called "Hadassah" after the righteous — is that Esther herself was righteous. And this is shown by the fact that Esther stood [dwelt] in the house of Ahasuerus, who was a completely wicked man, and she was not drawn after him; and this demonstrates that she was truly righteous. And this is what the verse brings (Zechariah 1:8), "among the myrtle trees that were in the deep (metzulah)" — meaning that the righteous stand among the wicked, who are the masters of Gehinnom, which is called "valley" (emek) and "deep" (metzulah), and yet they remain in their righteousness despite this. So too Esther stood in the house of the wicked one, whose place is in Gehinnom, and yet she stood firm in her righteousness. And because Esther was modest (tzenu'ah), as has been explained, and the myrtle, whose leaves cover its wood, is in this respect modest, therefore the name fitting for her was "Hadassah." And this is the meaning of "that is, Esther" — meaning that she had an inner, hidden level [madregah] on account of the modesty within her, and it was on account of this that she merited the redemption of Israel. And what he said (Megillah 13a), "that she used to hide her words," means that she had the attribute of modesty, and therefore she merited to destroy Haman. And this is known, that her being called "Esther" indicates the hidden, supernal, and inner level that she had, and as will be explained shortly, it is specifically modesty that destroys Haman. This matter Scripture alluded to in what it says concerning Esau (Jeremiah 49:20), "the young ones of the flock shall drag them away" — and Targum Yonatan [renders], "the youngest of his brothers." For Esau falls only by the hand of the tribe of Benjamin, who is the youngest. For the youngest has more modesty, since he does not go out into the open until last, and therefore he has modesty and concealment, as will be explained shortly. Therefore Haman fell by the hand of Mordecai and Esther, who are from the tribe of Benjamin, and especially by the hand of Esther, who is called after modesty. And Mordecai too had a supernal, hidden attribute, as will be explained further. For whoever is modest is not disposed to come out into the open, for the term "modest" (tzanua) implies that he is reserved and does not hasten to come out into the open. Therefore the youngest, who comes into the world and emerges from concealment into the open only last, indicates that his level is concealment and modesty, and therefore he emerges last into the open. And Esau has only the revealed, therefore Esau came out first. And over this matter, that which has an inner, hidden power rules. Therefore it is written (Genesis 27:22), "the voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau" — meaning, Jacob has the power of the voice, which issues forth from the inwardness of a person. And Esau has the hands, for there is nothing more outward than the hands, which extend outward. And the inner voice overcomes the hands that are outward, and these matters are matters of great wisdom. And therefore the name "Esther" was completely fitting for her, for by the power of the name of Esther she overcame Haman, who is of the seed of Amalek, who is of the seed of Esau (Genesis 36:12). And likewise, that which Rabbi Nechemiah says, that the nations used to call her "Astehara," from the language of "sihara" (moon). Some explain that it is [related to] Noga [Venus], because she was beautiful in the eyes of all who beheld her (below, verse 15), for this star is called "Noga" from the language of beauty. But it appears that it is from the language of "sihara" (moon), for the moon also rules over the entire world, just as Esther ruled. And the woman resembles the moon, not the sun, for the woman receives from the male, just as the moon receives its light from the sun. And the one who said that Esther was of medium stature (beinonit), like this myrtle, which is medium, neither large nor small — this is because Hashem, may He be blessed, gave grace to Esther, therefore she was medium. For a thing that is in the middle [ba-metzu'a] is pleasing to all, therefore he said that she was medium. But that which is entirely large is strange (zar); and likewise that which is entirely small is not suited to all. Rather, a thing that is medium bears grace in the eyes of all, since it is equal to all. Therefore it says shortly afterward (Megillah 13a) that each [nation] imagined her to be of its own nation, since she was suited to it. And each one's own nation seems beautiful in his eyes because it is his own and he is accustomed to it. So too Esther, being of medium [proportion], was suited to all, and therefore Esther bore grace in the eyes of all, and each one imagined that she was of his own nation. And likewise, what he said, that she was "greenish" (yerakrakot) (Megillah 13a), comes to say that Hashem, may He be blessed, gave Esther [the quality] to rule over all the nations, to the point that she would be suited to all, and she was fit for this kingship, which extends from one end of the world to the other. Therefore he said that she was medium, and likewise greenish, which is also medium between black and white, for the medium is suited to all. And one should understand that these words are stated with great wisdom. And what he said, "do not read 'le-vat' but 'le-vayit'" (Megillah 13a), it appears comes to say that Esther was a mate (bat zug) to Mordecai, and this is what he meant by "le-vayit," for one's wife is called "bayit" (household/house), as they said (Shabbat 118b), "I have never in my life called my wife 'my wife,' only 'my house.'" And on account of this the redemption came through Mordecai and Esther, for otherwise Esther would not have been fit to redeem Israel, for it is not fitting that the redemption should come through a woman, since the essence of a woman, who is subordinate to her husband, is subjugated, and a woman is not suited to redeem another. Therefore the redemption also had to come through Mordecai and Esther, for since she was his wife, they were reckoned as one person, and therefore the redemption came through them. And had Mordecai and Esther been separate, one redemption could not properly come through two separate individuals, for what relation would they have to one another? But since Esther was a mate to Mordecai, they are thus like one thing, and through the two of them together it was fitting that the redemption should come. And the redemption did not come through one alone, for certainly, had the redemption been complete — that they went out from under Ahasuerus [entirely] — then it would have been fitting for the redemption to come through Mordecai alone. But now, since there was no complete redemption here, the redemption came through Esther, who is a woman, and through a woman there is no complete redemption here, for every woman is subjugated to her husband. And furthermore, we have already said that the one more suited to bring redemption from Haman is the small and lesser one, as we wrote above, and as will be explained further shortly. Therefore Mordecai alone was not suited for this redemption except through Esther, and she was an orphan without father or mother, as will be explained, and she was fit for the redemption from Haman. And it is impossible that this redemption should come through Esther alone, for a woman is not fit to redeem. Nor [could it come] through Mordecai alone, as we have said. Nor through two separate individuals — only because Esther was reckoned as a mate to Mordecai [could it come through them]. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 6:7), Rabbi Berechiah said in the name of Rabbi Levi: You wept and said (Lamentations 5:3), "We have become orphans, without a father" — by your lives, the redeemer whom I will raise up for you in Media has no father and no mother. And the explanation of this is: when Israel went into exile and their Father in heaven abandoned them, it was said of Israel, "we have become orphans, without a father." And because the power of Amalek, which is very great, was overpowering them, and to nullify this power of Amalek requires an ascent to a very supernal level, as will be explained further. And this level, to defeat the power of Haman, could only be reached through an orphan, for it is written (Isaiah 57:15), "I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with the contrite and lowly of spirit" — and Hashem, may He be blessed, raises up the lowly. Therefore He raised up Esther, who was an orphan without father or mother, and He raised her up above the level of Haman. Therefore, when they said, "we have become orphans, without a father," the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: even though you are orphans, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not abandon the lowly and downtrodden, and therefore, by your lives, the redeemer whom I raise up for you in Media — and since his rank needed to be very supernal in order to defeat Haman, whose power is very great — this redeemer will be an orphan. And because he is an orphan, Hashem, may He be blessed, raises him up higher and higher, to be able to overcome Haman. And for this reason the redemption also had to come through Esther, for Esther was an orphan without father and without mother, as we explained above, and there is no need to explain further. "Do not read 'le-vat' but 'le-vayit'" (Megillah 13a). This is difficult — if so, why did it write "le-vat" and not write "le-ishah" (for a wife)? You should know that when one marries a woman for the sake of Heaven, then the woman is reckoned to him as though he had begotten her. And because Esther was a mate to Mordecai from Hashem, may He be blessed, therefore the term "daughter" (bat) is written, because it is as though he had begotten her. And so did they, of blessed memory, expound in Sotah (12a): whoever marries a woman for the sake of Heaven, it is as though he had begotten her. And the explanation of this is that Hashem, may He be blessed, took the woman from the man (Genesis 2:21), and there is no begetting higher than this, if you understand. And the explanation of "for the sake of Heaven," which he says, is to exclude the case of one who marries a woman for his own desire, for then it is not reckoned as though he had begotten her. But when he marries her for the sake of Heaven — inasmuch as Hashem, may He be blessed, took the woman from the man — then in this the male has, as it were, begotten the female who is his wife. Therefore this union is reckoned like when Hashem, may He be blessed, created man, taking the woman from the man, and this is as though he had begotten her. And furthermore, you should know [why] one who marries a woman for the sake of Heaven is as though he had begotten her, for they said in tractate Sanhedrin (22b): a woman is an unformed vessel of wood (golem keli etz), and she does not form a bond except with the one who made her into a [finished] vessel. That is to say, that a woman is only on the level of matter (chomer), and the man is reckoned as being like the form (tzurah) for her, and this matter we have explained in several places. Therefore the woman is compared to an unformed mass (golem), which is matter alone and does not have the form of a [finished] vessel. And it says that the woman does not form a bond except with the one who made her into a vessel — that is to say, that the woman has connection and bond only with the man, who is reckoned as the form for the woman, and there is no bond like the bond of form to matter, for they become one thing entirely. And it is known that matter has no existence in actuality [by itself], and because the woman is reckoned like the matter, it is through the man, who is reckoned as the form for the woman, that the woman comes to exist in actuality; and therefore it is reckoned as though the man had begotten her, bringing her forth into actuality. And this is specifically [when it is] for the sake of Heaven; but when it is for his own desire, then the man, insofar as he pursues his desire, is himself material (chomri), and how could he be reckoned as the form for the woman when he himself is material? "And he brought up (omen) Hadassah." In Midrash Rabbah (Genesis Rabbah 1:1), Rabbi Yehoshua opened [his exposition with], "then I was by Him as an amon" (Proverbs 8:30) — amon means hidden away (mutzna), as it is said, "and he brought up (omen) Hadassah" — thus far [the words of the Midrash]. The explanation is: with anyone who is an "omen," [meaning] the child that he raises, the child is under his wings, and therefore "omen" is a term of concealment (mutzna). For since Esther was orphaned of father and mother, she had no one to protect her, as is the case with all orphans. And Mordecai took her to himself, [so] she had someone under whose wings she was. And this is not like a father and mother who raise their children, since they are [naturally] father and mother to them. But one who raises a child in his house, and is not [its] father or mother, is [in a sense] concealed beneath his wings [in raising it]. And this name "Esther" was all the more fitting for her, for she was called "Esther" because she had the attribute of modesty and concealment, and this quality was the cause of her being the redeemer, as we explained above, and therefore she was hidden away and concealed with Mordecai. And just as the name "Esther" was hers on account of the modesty and concealment found in her, so too the name "Hadassah" was also given on account of this matter, for with the myrtle, its leaves cover its wood (Sukkah 32b), to the point that the wood, which is the main part, is covered by the leaves. Therefore it says, "and he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther" — and she had both perfections: "Hadassah," on account of the fact that she was not exposed, but covered; and the name "Esther," on account of complete concealment. For there are women who are exposed and licentious, and against this she is called "Hadassah," whose wood is covered by its leaves, and is not exposed. And beyond this, that she was concealed — therefore she is called "Esther" on account of modesty. And in the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 30:8): the Rabbis say, everyone of whom the word "was" [hayah] is said, fed and sustained [others]. Noah, of whom it is said (Genesis 6:9), "a righteous man he was [ish tzaddik hayah]," fed and sustained [the animals] for a full twelve months, as it says (ibid. verse 21), "and you, take for yourself, etc." Joseph — "and Joseph sustained his father and his brothers" (Genesis 47:12). Moses fed and sustained Israel for forty years in the wilderness. Job — "and did I eat my morsel alone, [and the orphan did not eat of it]" (Job 31:17) — could it be that an orphan never ate from him? Certainly not! Mordecai fed and sustained [Esther]. Rabbi Yudan said: once he went around to all the wet-nurses and could not find a nurse for Esther right away, so he himself became a nurse. Rabbi Berechiah and Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Elazar [said]: milk came to him and he nursed her. Rabbi Abba expounded this publicly, and the assembly laughed at his voice [i.e., mocked him]. He said to them: is this not [also taught in] a Mishnah (Machshirin 6:7)? Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer says, the milk of a male is ritually pure. And the explanation of this is: one who feeds and sustains [another], because he gives existence/sustenance to the one whom he supports, therefore the term "was" [hayah] is written regarding the one who sustains, for "hayah" is a being (havayah) that is past, and everything past precedes; and one who feeds and sustains another likewise precedes that other. Therefore, of anyone regarding whom the term "was" is stated, [it means] he fed and sustained another, in that he preceded him, and was a [source of] being for the other. And because Esther was disposed to receive her sustenance from Mordecai, and from no one else at all — for it is written regarding Esther, "and she became to him as a daughter" — and since she was to him as a daughter, she was to him completely as a daughter, and he nursed her completely. And therefore they said that Mordecai nursed Esther, and milk came to him. And it is possible to explain that when Mordecai was sustaining her, and he had no wet-nurse, the blessing was drawn down into the food, and this was through Mordecai, and the food became milk in her stomach [me'eha], and he fed Esther as though it were entirely milk, and so it was in her stomach, since she was as a daughter to Mordecai. And because it was difficult for them [to accept] that milk is not applicable to a male, and that through Mordecai it should not be possible for this blessing to come about, becoming milk, since this is entirely outside the order of the world — regarding this it said: but we have learned (Machshirin 6:7), "the milk of a male is pure," and so milk is indeed applicable to a male. Therefore this blessing was drawn down from Mordecai, so that the sustenance he provided her became milk in her stomach. And all this is because Hashem, may He be blessed, gave Esther to Mordecai as a daughter. And one should know that the male also has some aspect in relation to milk, since he also has a sign of breasts on the male, as it says, "the milk of a male is pure." Only, because the male is further from the nature of milk, therefore the flow of milk does not come out into actuality in the case of a male — only if there is a predisposition in him, and this occurs more when it is fitting for it, and this factor causes it to come out into actuality. But with a woman, milk is found in actuality [naturally]. And Mordecai, to whom Hashem, may He be blessed, gave Esther as a daughter — and this matter was from Hashem, may He be blessed — it was likewise from Hashem, may He be blessed, that the sustenance became milk. And even if this was not literally so, in any case his sustenance was as good as milk, as we have said, since it came about from Hashem, may He be blessed. And all this indicates concerning this redemption, that Esther received, through Mordecai, a very supernal influence (shefa), by which she was able to overcome Haman. And this was also the cause of Esther receiving an influence of milk through Mordecai, for milk comes from a supernal, hidden place, as we say in the first chapter of Berachot (10a): he suckled from his mother's breasts and uttered song, as it says (Psalms 103:2), "Bless Hashem, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits," as we explained there. And understand this well — it is all matters of wisdom. In any case, it is also possible to explain all this literally (ki-feshuto), that Mordecai and Esther were fit for miracles such as these, and since it was fitting for Mordecai to be the one who raised Hadassah, this matter too came about literally in a miraculous way, and thus it may be explained. And this is also implied in tractate Shabbat, chapter "Bameh Beheimah" (53b), and there it can be explained that the words are according to their plain sense, that he literally nursed her. And all the more so here, where it is written "and she became to him as a daughter," and this matter was from Hashem, may He be blessed — for the entire episode of this Megillah came from Hashem, may He be blessed. And since it was from Hashem, may He be blessed, that she became to him as a daughter, and from Hashem, may He be blessed, everything is in complete perfection, therefore the milk too was from Hashem, may He be blessed, so that she was to him completely as a daughter, as was fitting to be. "And he brought up Hadassah." In the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, part 2, remez 1053): Rav said, she was forty years old. And Shmuel said, she was eighty years old. The Rabbis say, she was seventy-four, [corresponding to] the numerical value of "Hadassah." Rabbi Berechiah in the name of Rabbi Nechemiah said: the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham our father: you went out from your father's house, from Charan, at the age of seventy-five (Genesis 12:4); I too will raise up a redeemer from you at the age of seventy-five, corresponding to the numerical value of "Hadassah." One may ask: Scripture only mentions "na'arah" (young woman/maiden), and everywhere "na'arah" is [used] and not "bogeret" (a mature woman) (Ketubot 38a, 48b), so how is it possible to say that she was seventy-five years old? Furthermore, even regarding Sarah they only said that she was, '[at] seven, like twenty, for beauty' (Genesis Rabbah 58:1) — so how could this one be seventy-five, and yet it be said of her (here) that she was of beautiful form? Therefore one must explain that what is said here, that she was seventy-five, is meant in this way: Esther is not like other women, for the holy spirit rested upon Esther, and certainly from this you may know that there was also wisdom in her regarding matters divine, and therefore they said that she was seventy-five years old. For this is [the rule], that whoever has divine wisdom in particular is called "zaken" (elder), as they said (Kiddushin 32b), '"zaken" (elder) means only one who has acquired wisdom' — and even a young child who is wise is also called "zaken" (ibid.). Therefore he said that Esther was seventy-five years old, for she had wisdom to the point that she had the wisdom that a person of seventy-five years has. For seventy are the days of a person's life, and the wise, the more they age, their understanding increases upon them (Shabbat 152a), and therefore when one is seventy-five years old, wisdom is more fitting for him. And we have already explained the reason: that a person is possessed of physicality until he is old in days, and then the physical powers depart from him, as is visible to the eyes. And when the physical powers depart, then the separate intellect (ha-sekhel ha-nivdal) grows stronger. Therefore, the longer there is old age here, the more the intellectual power grows stronger. Nonetheless, when one is entirely old and is weak, a person's intellect is not so [strong], for the weakness of the body confounds his intellect, so that he does not have the intellect in its perfection. And the one who holds that she was seventy-four years old, [his reasoning is] that up to seventy-four years, which is still a lesser portion of the [next] ten [years, i.e., less than half of the decade from seventy to eighty], he has not yet come into the category of [old-age] weakness (gevurot), [and] has not left the category of "old age" (seivah) [in the ordinary sense], and does not have the feebleness of eighty, and his intellect is still in its full strength as it was before; therefore the wisest is one who is seventy-four years old. But one who is seventy-five, who has already passed the half of the [next] ten, for half-and-half is treated like a majority (Pesachim 79a), has the weakness of the body entirely, and this confounds his intellect. And according to the one who says she was seventy-five years old, his view is that it is not called a majority except when the majority of the years of the [next] ten has passed, that is, six years [into the decade]. But one who is seventy-five, who is [only] half of the ten, has not yet left the first category of the seventy years, and a person still has the wisdom. And according to the one who says she was eighty, he holds that so long as a person has not yet reached the category of [the years of] "gevurot" [i.e., the eighty-year mark], that is, until eighty, he is still in the strength of the seventy years. The explanation is that he holds that the days of "gevurot" do not begin until eighty, and therefore he said that she was eighty years old. And according to the one who says she was forty years old, [this is] because "at forty, understanding (binah)" (Avot 5:21). And why is understanding at forty? Because until forty a person has not yet passed the majority of his years, and the material body still predominates until forty years, at which point the material begins to diminish and the intellectual begins to grow strong; therefore at forty years [one attains] understanding. And he holds that Esther, when Ahasuerus took her, had the understanding that a person has when he is forty years old, to the point that the holy spirit rested upon her. And understanding comes when a person is forty years old. And even though you will not find this in other people, that one who is young in years should be called "zaken" (elder) on account of his wisdom — for this matter does not apply to every person, for even if a person is wise, nevertheless, on account of his youth a person is inclined toward the body, and he is not called "zaken." But Esther merited this, for her entire condition was in the mean [ba-metzu'a], and she was not inclined more toward the physical. Therefore it says that she was seventy, or seventy-five, or forty years old. However, if you understand further, [these are] matters of great wisdom, coming to say that Esther had attachment (deveikut) to the holy spirit, and that level befits her [in] the number seventy-five, for these seventy-five are reckoned like seven and a half, since every ten is reckoned as one; and therefore it says she was seventy-five. And likewise, according to the one who says she was forty, he holds that this supernal attribute (middah) that Esther merited corresponds to one who is forty years old. And likewise, according to the one who says she was eighty, he holds that the attribute to which Esther merited attachment corresponds to the number eighty — and this you should understand. And according to this explanation, the one who says she was seventy-four years old means that she had passed seventy-four, and she was [in her] seventy-fifth year. And they do not [really] disagree; only, the one who says seventy-four, because the numerical value of "Hadassah" is seventy-four, needed to say that she had already passed seventy-four, and was in her seventy-fifth year. And understand this well. And there is no need to elaborate further on matters such as these, which are matters of wisdom, and they are deep matters, for they differ regarding the level [madregah] of Esther.

Questions: what it says, "when the king's commandment... was published, and when [maidens] were gathered" — all these are superfluous words, for the main point is surely to inform us that Esther was taken; and what difference does it make whether many maidens were taken before her or not? "so it came to pass" — (8) in addition to all these [reasons], it had already been heard — the king's word and his decree. For two orders went out from the king: first the order went out that maidens should be sought for the king from among those who would hand them over willingly, and this is called "the king's word"; and afterward the second order went out, that maidens be gathered by force (as above, verses 2-3), and this is called "his decree" — for with the second order they certainly obligated the one who transgressed and hid his daughter to the sentence of death. It is thus clear that at first he was not swayed by the benefit, when the king's word went out that the maiden who found favor would be taken as a wife, nor afterward by the danger, when the decree went out that they would be taken by force. And this is the second point: "and when many maidens were gathered" — that already many maidens had been gathered from outside Shushan to Shushan, and then certainly the liability of a man of Shushan who saw all this and yet concealed the beautiful maiden who was with him was great. And nevertheless, these righteous ones were not swayed by any of this — rather, "Esther was taken" by force, and Mordecai did not hand her over of his own will.

He eagerly delivered her cosmetics. He was more expedient and quicker with bringing her [cosmetics] than with all the others. — Notes: (9) To avoid eating non-kosher food Esther had Hagai provide her with natural uncooked food. See Maseches Megillah 13a. Assigned to her. To serve her, and so they would do for all of them; and our Rabbis expounded what they expounded. — Notes: (10) Ibid. By having seven maidservants Esther was able to know when it was Shabbos. She called each one on a different day of the week and when the one that was assigned for Shabbos would come, she knew it was Shabbos. Another reason for having seven maidservants, one for each day of the week, so that the maidservants for weekdays would not observe her resting on Shabbos and detect that she was Jewish. According to Targum, each maidservant’s name corresponded to a specific day’s part of creation. He favored her. I.e., he changed her וַיְשַׁנֶּהָ=שִׁנָּה אוֹתָהּ.

"and she obtained kindness" (va-tisa chesed) — the kindness that she carried with her did not depart from her. "and he hastened" (va-yavhel) — the meaning is speed. "her portions" (manoteha) — shares, like "one portion" (manah achat) in matters of eating (1 Samuel 1:5), since it was a rich portion. "and the seven [maidens]" — [that is,] the maidens who served her. "who were meet" (ha-re'uyot) — this expression is well known in the words of our Sages of blessed memory. "and he changed her place" (va-yeshanneha) — he changed her portions in order to do good for her; and the meaning of "the house of the women" attaches to "va-yeshanneha," for he changed her portions and her maidens, while she remained in the house of the women together with her companions. Some say that Mordecai did not act rightly in commanding Esther not to reveal her people, because he feared that the king would not take her as a wife if he knew that she was from the exile. And others said that through prophecy, or in a dream, he knew that salvation would come to Israel through her. But what is correct in my eyes is that Mordecai did this so that she would keep the Torah of Hashem in secret — that she would not eat forbidden meat (nevelot) and would keep the Sabbaths — without the attendants noticing; for if the matter became known, perhaps the king would force her [to transgress], or kill her, since she had been seized against her will. And we know that Mordecai was among the great men of Israel, for behold, he was third among the officers who went up with Zerubbabel; and when he saw that the [Temple] House was not [yet] rebuilt, he went to Elam, and was at the king's gate in the palace — and this was a position of great rank. And behold, Daniel appointed his companions over the kingdom of Babylon, while he himself remained at the king's gate. And had Mordecai not already been, prior to the episode of Esther, among the king's servants, the attendants would not have allowed him to walk about before the courtyard of the house of the women.

In order to arrive at the explanation of the meaning of this verse and the two verses that follow it, let us first note several difficulties. First, it says "and she obtained kindness before him" — for if this means simply that he did her a kindness by hurrying to give her ointments and portions, it should have said "and she obtained kindness from before him," or "and he did her a kindness." Second, it says "to give her" twice, when mentioning it the last time alone would have sufficed. Third, what is the meaning of "and he changed her, and her maidens, for the better"? If it means that he gave her fitting portions and maidens and did not do so for the others, this is already redundant, for it has already been said; and moreover, who would not know that this was "for the better"? And also, why is it stated in this manner, and not stated explicitly as "that he did well by her"? Furthermore, the phrase "the house of the women" appears to be superfluous. And in addition, adjacent to this verse it would have been fitting to say "and when the turn of each maiden arrived," etc., for instead it says "Esther had not told," etc., and the verse "and every single day Mordechai walked," etc. — these verses are placed in the midst of the connected narrative, out of their proper place. However, [the resolution is as follows]: Behold, see indeed that the kingship came to her from Hashem, and not by nature, but rather in order that a great thing be accomplished through her — for merit is brought about through one who is [already] meritorious. For behold, He, may He be blessed, wondrously showed her His kindness in two great matters, one above the other: the first pertains to the body, [namely] to raise her up through the ranks of royalty; and the second pertains to the soul, [namely] to serve Hashem and cling to Him, that she not be moved from His service, may He be blessed, while she was still among the gentiles — for this is a very great matter. And concerning these two matters it speaks: concerning the first it says "and the maiden pleased him"; and concerning the second it says "and she obtained kindness before him." And it goes on to explain what followed from the fact that "the maiden pleased him": [Hegai] said in his heart, there is none like her fit for the king, and she is certainly the one who will reign in place of Vashti; and therefore "he hastened to give her her ointments and her portions," unlike what he did for the others, to whom he gave only portions, or [in some cases] only their ointments alone — for from that point on he set his heart on the fact that this one would reign, and from then on he began to treat her according to royal protocol, even though they had not yet made her queen until the seventh year of his reign, as we will explain shortly, with the help of Heaven. And concerning its statement "and she obtained kindness before him" — this means that she obtained from Him, may He be blessed, the power of the attribute of kindness before Hegai. And this is indeed true, for it is difficult for one of the king's officers to go against the king's will in order to uphold the law of a king's servant, and to nullify the king's law within his own house and walls — as in the matter of Daniel through the steward, where He, may He be blessed, had to grant Daniel favor and mercy before the chief of the officers, so that he would come to uphold Daniel's law, which was not in accordance with the king's law. In the same way it says here that she obtained kindness from Him, may He be blessed, before Hegai, in order to fulfill the Torah of Hashem, so that Esther would not be defiled among those daughters of the nations in the house of the women. And this was in two respects: one, in a great cornerstone of the Torah of Hashem, namely the holy Sabbath; the second, in the other matters of the law. And concerning the first, it says "and the seven maidens," etc. — for besides the fact that perhaps seven maidens were not given to all the other maidens who were gathered under Hegai's care, we also note precisely that it says "the maidens" with the definite article, when it should have said "and seven fitting maidens," etc.; and also the word "fitting" is superfluous. Rather, this is because He, may He be blessed, wondrously showed her His kindness, in that of the entire king's house, only fitting maidens were given to her — those with whom she could conduct herself according to the law of Moses and Israel, who would go along with her in doing so and would not become resentful so as to reveal that her soul loathed the king's law. This is one point, regarding the observance of the Sabbath, and it is as our Sages of blessed memory said in the Gemara — that she would count by them the days of the week, and Rashi explained that one served her each day, and when the day designated to be the seventh day arrived, she knew that it was the Sabbath, in order to sanctify it. And concerning the other commandments it says "and she changed her, and her maidens," etc., and this is as our Sages of blessed memory [said] on the verse "Judah is gone into exile" (Lamentations 1:3) — there is no exile like the exile of Judah, for all the other nations, [when passing] from one people to another, do not feel any distress, for their outlook mingles with one another in food and in drink and in every matter; but Israel are separated from them in their food, and their Sabbaths, and their cooking, and several other similar matters, on account of which they are hated by the nations without end. And these indeed were the words of Haman to the king, when he said, "and their laws are different" (Esther 3:8), and so on, as will be discussed further on. Now, since Esther was in the house of the women, under Hegai's charge, before she was taken to the house of royalty when they made her queen in place of Vashti — surely, if she were to differ in her food and in all matters of the law, would she not be despised in their eyes on account of the lack of a meeting of minds with them, and through this the matter would be revealed and they would all loathe her? [The answer is] that this was His kindness, may He be blessed, that she obtained kindness from Him — for she "changed" from all the other women who were in the house of the women, and her maidens as well; and needless to say, they did not despise her on account of the lack of a meeting of minds in all the details of the law; rather, on the contrary, it turned out for the good, in that she became more esteemed in their eyes. And this is [the meaning of] "for the better, [in] the house of the women" — for even while she was in the house of the women, among those who were there with her, and even though they might have thought ill of her, the opposite occurred, for her being different turned out for the better, [in] the house of the women. And should you say that the reason her being different turned out for the good was that it was not known that she was from Israel — the wretched and despised in their eyes — for had they known, on the contrary, she would have been held in contempt in their eyes, and therefore she acted wisely in not telling of her people and her kindred, so that her neighbors and Hegai her guardian would not despise her — to this [the text] responds: this is not so. Rather, the reason Esther did not tell of her people, etc., was not for the sake of honor, so that she would not be despised in their eyes, but rather because Mordechai had commanded her not to tell — for were it not so, even had she told of her people and her kindred, the mighty people would have honored her (cf. Isaiah 25:3), since Hashem was with her, and she obtained kindness before Him, from Him, may He be blessed, as stated. And should you ask: How could Mordechai have commanded her not to tell, when on the contrary, he walked every day before the court of the house of the women — and why would he do so, if not so that it would become known that Esther was his kinswoman, so that they would promote him to greatness? To this [the text] responds: this is not so; rather, the reason Mordechai walked every day before the court, etc., was only to know of Esther's welfare and what would be done with her, as will be explained, please God. And in the Gemara, [on the words] "and she changed," etc.: Rav said that she fed her Jewish food; Shmuel said [she fed her] the walls of pigs; and Rabbi Yochanan said that she fed her legumes/seeds. [Thus far the Gemara.] Now, the structure of their dispute is as follows: according to Rav she ate entirely Jewish food; according to Shmuel, gentile food, even the walls of pigs; and Rabbi Yochanan proposed a compromise, that she did not eat Jewish food in public but acted cunningly to conceal the matter and fed her legumes. Now, I think that all three of them expounded by means of a gezerah shavah [verbal analogy], in the manner of most methods of aggadah, for those versed in them. This is so: Rav expounded [based on the fact that] it says here "for good," and elsewhere it is written, "a good doctrine" (Proverbs 4:2, referring to the Torah) — meaning that it was food in accordance with the Torah. And Shmuel expounded from the verse "and houses full of all good things" (Deuteronomy 6:11), which is, as our Sages of blessed memory said, [a reference to] the walls of pigs. And Rabbi Yochanan expounded from the verse "and their appearance seemed better/fairer" (Daniel 1:15) — stated regarding the legumes/seeds in the account of Daniel and his companions. Now, is not Shmuel's view — that he expounded "the walls of pigs" — considered strange, all the more so according to Rashi's explanation that she ate pig meat and was not compelled to, which is the opposite of the Torah's view? For it would be difficult to say "for good" [if she ate forbidden things], since it seems strange for Scripture to call something bad "good." But I think, in my own opinion, that the intent of the verse "and she changed," [meaning] to eat a forbidden thing — do not be astonished by this, for it was "for good" on account of the good that was destined to be accomplished through her, namely the preservation of all the souls of the people of Israel. And as for what Mordechai commanded her — that she not tell of her people, etc. — I think it was this: he surely was not lacking in the capacity to entertain the thought in his heart, saying, "What is this that God has done — two opposites in one woman: that He raised her, the Most High, to succeed to so very great a kingship, and yet, in contrast to this, He debased her, lowering her to lie with Ahasuerus." Also, Mordechai knew all that was happening — that Israel were among those eating at the king's table, the bread of wickedness (Proverbs 4:17), drinking the wine of their libations (cf. Deuteronomy 32:38) — and it was for this reason that he cried out bitterly against the Jews who were in Shushan, that they should not come to the king's feast, for it would end bitterly. And therefore, when Esther was taken to the king's house, there is no doubt that he set his heart on saying: this is nothing other than a decree standing, God forbid, over Israel, and it was from Hashem that at such a time Esther would come to the kingship, so that she might be able to bring them healing. He also saw that it was not for naught that she was taken from the tribe of Benjamin, from the seed of Saul, as our Sages of blessed memory said in the Gemara — that in the merit of Saul's modesty, in that he did not tell of the matter of the kingship [when he was chosen], he merited that Esther, who [likewise] did not tell of her people, etc., should descend from him. Therefore he could not fail to entertain the thought — perhaps out of distress over the sin of his father's house, which had caused the coming of Haman into the world, on account of his having left Agag alive for one night, so that darkness took him to lie with a woman and beget the one who would beget Haman, who would feed us the bread of mourning in order to destroy us — such that he said in his heart: either she would be endangered and die at a time of trouble to atone for her father's house, or through her would come the redemption of Israel, and she would rectify the corruption of her father's house. And therefore, every single day Mordechai walked before the court of the house of the women, to know Esther's welfare — to see whether something had begun to happen by which she would be endangered, and this is [the meaning of] "the welfare of Esther"; or, alternatively, whether it was in order that she might save Israel, he went to know "what would be done with her" — meaning, what would be the matter and the miracle that would be done for Israel through her, if some matter should arise requiring her to save Israel. And on account of this matter he commanded her not to tell of her people, Israel, and her kindred, namely the tribe of Benjamin — for he said in his heart: if some decree were to occur, God forbid, over Israel, it is better that they not know that she is Jewish and from Benjamin, lest at the time of the decree they exclude her from the general community, along with her kindred. In such a way that she would have no opening to say to the king, "save her and her people," for that would not be to the king's honor; and in this way, incidentally, Israel would be saved — as indeed happened, for she said, "for we are sold, I and my people" (Esther 7:4). It was for this reason that his heart was alarmed and he rose from his place, saying, "Who is this that his heart has filled him to do so?" (Esther 7:5) But had she told of her people and her kindred, they would have stripped her of this very net that had been spread over Israel, and she would have had no opening to counter the plan of the doer of evil — all the more so had it been written and sealed with the king's ring, for then there would be no reversing it, since the king would say to her, "That is enough for you, for you are not included among the king's prisoners" — there would be no escape, God forbid. And this is the statement of the verses: "Esther had not told of her people," etc., "for Mordechai had commanded," etc. And the reason is that indeed, "every single day Mordechai walked," etc., for his eyes were open to know Esther's welfare — whether some matter would arise by which she would be endangered on account of the guilt of her father's house, or to see what would be done through her for Israel, for their affair was not for naught. And therefore he did not want her to tell, so that she might be able to bring them healing, and the door not be locked before her; for were she to make known her people and her kindred, they would exclude her from the community, along with her kindred, so as to shut her from pleading on their behalf. And it was in accordance with this entire vision that he spoke to her at the time of trouble, as will be explained, please God.

Questions: "and she pleased" and "she obtained kindness" is a doubling of the same idea. What is the meaning of "and he hastened" — what is this haste about? Why are "portions" mentioned here, when it is not mentioned that portions were given to the other maidens? Also it is not mentioned that the other maidens were given seven maidens [as attendants]. And the word "meet" [fitting] indicates that they were fitting for her alone. "and she pleased" — now, after all this account, in which it was plainly seen that Esther had been taken by force, surely it would have been fitting to sentence her and her guardian to death, for they had transgressed the king's command. Nevertheless, because "the maiden pleased him" and he saw that she would succeed at ruling, through this "she obtained kindness before him" — meaning that he did her the kindness of forgiving her wrongdoing and not punishing her. "And he hastened" — now [Scripture] relates how, as soon as he saw her, he understood immediately that she would be the one to reign, and on account of this he departed from his practice for her in four things. (1) that with every maiden gathered to him, he did not begin immediately to give her her cosmetic treatments, but waited until the beginning of her turn, as will be explained (in verse 12); but with Esther he hastened and hurried to give her her cosmetic treatments, so that the twelve months would be completed straightaway and she would come before the king sooner. (2) "with her portions" — that he gave her portions especially, which he gave to no [other] maiden, because he knew that she would reign. (3) "and the seven maidens" — for the queen had seven maidens to attend her, and this one, even though she had not yet become queen, he gave her the seven maidens fitting to be given afterward, at the time she would become queen — for he had no doubt at all that she would reign. (4) "and he changed her" — that he changed the situation not only for her but also for her maidens, for the better, in the house of the women; and this includes two things: (a) that he gave them the best and most spacious rooms; (b) that he gave them the best of the foods, and the like.

Not to reveal it. So that they should say that she was from an ignoble family and dismiss her, for if they knew that she was of the family of King Shaul, they would keep her. — Notes: (11) According to Targum, Mordechai feared for Esther’s and the Jews’ safety.

Questions: Why did she not tell her kindred? "She had not told" — now he explains the second point in time at which Esther showed that she was taken against her will. For after he had prefaced how they treated her with honor the whole time, as people confident that she would become queen, nevertheless her heart was not enticed by this, and she did not wish to tell her people and her kindred. And this was on the advice of Mordecai, for he thought that thereby the king would send her away from his house, since he would not take a foundling from the marketplace to be his wife.

"Esther had not made known, etc." (verse 10) — The explanation of this is: had she made known her people and her kindred, Mordecai was concerned that the nations would fear that the queen would elevate her kindred above all the officials, and bring down others. Or perhaps they would fear that, since the queen was from the Jews, the queen would hate whoever was not from her nation, and would incite the king against them. And certainly they would prefer more to have a queen from their own nation, and because of this they would be scheming to bring Esther down through many matters of slander, until it would be done to her as was done to Vashti. Therefore he charged her that she should not tell her people and her kindred. It should have said [simply], "she had not made known her people" alone — for since they would not know her people, then they would also not know her family. But Esther did not conceal her people out of fear that the nations might think that Esther would elevate her whole people, for there is no need to be concerned about this. Rather, it was because in any case she needed to conceal her family, for this — that Esther would raise up Mordecai — is certainly what all the officials would suspect of her, just as she indeed did (below, 8:1-2). And since in any case she had to conceal her kindred, she also concealed her nation, for the reason we have stated — so that they would not suspect of her that she would elevate her nation and raise them up. And in any case this is also not difficult, for the meaning of "her kindred" is that she was of a family of kings, for indeed in truth Esther was of the seed of King Saul (Rashi, here). And if it said [only], "Esther had not made known her people," one might say that nevertheless she did make known her family — that she was of royal lineage — and therefore it says "and her kindred." It also seems possible to say that all who share one religion are called "her people." Therefore, even if she did not make known her people, it is possible that she made known her kindred. For when a person makes known his kindred, it still is not known which people he is joined to. Therefore it says that Esther had not made known her kindred [either]. And so they said in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1053): "For Mordecai charged her that she should not tell" — because he was fleeing from greatness. For the king would say to Esther, "Whose daughter are you, with whom did you grow up, and I will make them great — kings and rulers." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "You flee from greatness — by your life, I will make you great." Another interpretation: Mordecai thought in his heart, "From the day Israel went into exile they are not honored among the nations; I should not do anything that would cause [people] to rise up against the people of the Holy One, blessed be He" — for they know that Esther is my relative, and they will say to the king, "Your wife is a Jewess," and they will cut off her people and her father's house. Nevertheless, he did not budge, but went and watched over her all the days, so that they would not kill her, just as they had killed Vashti. And the explanation of this Midrash is that Mordecai was inclined toward this matter of distancing himself from royalty, just as King Saul had done — who was the head of his lineage — who fled from the monarchy; therefore he charged her not to tell. And this is what caused him to merit victory over Haman, as was explained above, for it was because Esther was an orphan that Esther merited to be a redeemer. And another explanation, as we have said, is that Mordecai feared lest harm come to Esther, endangering her, her people, and her kindred. And if she were to tell her people, even though she would not tell her kindred, he feared lest they would kill her, just as they had killed Vashti. Therefore it is written (verse 11), "Every day Mordecai walked before the court of the king, to know how Esther fared and what would be done with her." For Mordecai feared that even though Esther would not tell her people and her kindred, perhaps it would become known to them from another source, through others, and perhaps they would endanger her because they did not want a queen from a nation that opposed them — for she would elevate her people and her family, as we have said, since they would think that her people and her kindred would become close to the monarchy, as indeed happened in the end. Or Esther herself would come to hate those who are not of her nation, and would rise up against them to incite the king against them. And especially because all the nations hate Israel, and therefore they would not want at all for the queen to be Jewish — therefore he feared lest they endanger her. But according to the plain meaning (peshat), one may explain "and every day Mordecai walked before the court of the king" — that this was out of love for Esther: he walked before the court of the king to know how Esther fared, that nothing had happened to her — and to this applies "how Esther fared." "And what would be done with her" — whether they would remove her from the king's house, or bring her near. Only, because the verse was written after it said "Esther had not made known her people and her kindred," they therefore expounded it as mentioned above. And that which they explained (Esther Rabbah 6:8) — that he came to ask about her monthly law and her ritual impurity. It seems that it does not mean specifically her monthly law and her impurity alone, but rather the same applies to the other commandments of the Torah — that he walked before the court of the king in case she had some doubt about a matter she needed to keep away from. And it appears that they derived this precise reading from the fact that it is not written, 'Mordecai went before the court of the women's house to know how Esther fared,' but rather it says "walked about" — meaning that he walked about like a person who goes about for a stroll, not in order to do anything in particular, only that he goes about for a stroll, so that if another needs him, he will find him.

And what would be done with her. He [Mordechai] was one of two righteous men to whom a hint of salvation was given; Dovid and Mordechai. Dovid as it is stated, “Even the lion and the bear has your servant slain.” He [Dovid] said [to himself], “this incident did not happen to me only that I should rely on it and do battle with this one [Golyas].” And similarly, Mordechai [said to himself], “It did not happen to this righteous woman that she should be taken to a gentile’s bed only that she is destined to rise to save Yisroel.” He therefore repeatedly went around to find out what would be her fate. — Notes: (12) I Shmuel 17:36. (13) Esther Rabbah 6:6. Accordingly ומה יעשה בה means “and what would be accomplished through her.”

"how Esther did" (et shelom Esther) — [namely,] whether she was in need of physicians.

Questions: Why did Mordecai walk about every single day to know Esther's welfare? Did he not know that she would not enter the king's house until twelve months were completed? "And every day" — in this too she was in great danger, for she was liable to punishment in that she showed she was acting under compulsion — to the point that on account of this Mordecai would visit every day to know her welfare and what would be done to her, that is, whether they would punish her or expel her. For he had determined for certain that she would not get off without punishment for her rebellion against the king. Yet nevertheless she placed a muzzle on her mouth and did not tell.

"to know how Esther fared" — this is a separate matter in its own right. And they said (Esther Rabbah 6:8) that [Mordecai feared] lest they perform witchcraft against her. But why would they perform witchcraft against her? Rather, as we have said, he was concerned lest it become known to them that she was a Jewess from another nation, and therefore they would perform witchcraft against her. And furthermore, a woman is jealous only of her fellow's thigh (i.e., of another woman's beauty) (Megillah 13a), and when the women would see that Esther was more beloved by Hegai, the guardian of the women, they would perform witchcraft against her. And it specifically says witchcraft, because that is a craft associated with women. And it appears that the fact that she did not tell of her people and her birthplace was entirely a matter of pikuach nefesh (saving her life), for she was afraid that they would rise up against her to kill her by whatever means possible. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 6:6): four righteous men were alluded to [in Scripture] — two of them were apprehensive, and two of them were not apprehensive. To Moses it was said (Exodus 17:14), "and put it in the ears of Joshua," to tell him that he would die and Joshua would bring [Israel] in, yet he was not apprehensive, as it is written (Deuteronomy 3:23), "And I pleaded with Hashem." And to Jacob it was said (Genesis 28:15), "and I will guard you," yet he was very frightened and afraid — rather, he said, "Perhaps I became defiled in the house of the impure one." But David was alluded to and was apprehensive: "both the lion and the bear [your servant struck down]," etc. (I Samuel 17:36) — David said, "Am I then some mighty man, that I struck down these wild beasts?" Rather, he said, "Perhaps something is destined to happen to Israel, and they are destined to be saved through me." As for Mordecai, "and every single day he would walk," he said, "Is it possible that this righteous woman would be married to this uncircumcised one? Rather, it must be for some great purpose, that through her Israel will be saved." Thus far [the Midrash]. And it appears that [the Midrash] comes to say that where there is something to which one can attribute [the matter, i.e., an alternative explanation], one does not become apprehensive; but where one cannot attribute it [to something else], one becomes apprehensive. Therefore David and Mordecai had nothing to attribute their concern to, and so they were apprehensive. But Jacob had something to attribute it to, as he said, "Perhaps I became sullied by sin" (Rashi, Genesis 32:11), and therefore he was not apprehensive about what had been said to him (Genesis 28:15), "and I will guard you wherever you go, etc." And Moses, too, had something to attribute [the command] to, in what was said to him (Exodus 17:14), "and put it in the ears of Joshua" — because Joshua was occupied with the wars against Amalek, and therefore it was said to Moses, "and put it in the ears of Joshua," and not because Joshua would be the one to bring them into the land.

Time. Time.

"the turn" (tor) of every maiden — like "et" (a set time); and some say it is from the root "tur" (to go around), for it comes at an appointed time, in the sense of "and the voice of the turtledove (tor)" (Song of Songs 2:12). "at the end of her being" (mi-ketz heyot lah) — ["ketz" means] "end," like "mi-ketz sheva shanim" (at the end of seven years) (Deuteronomy 15:1), which is the original [usage]. "oil of myrrh" (shemen ha-mor) — a delightful perfume, and concerning it there is a dispute.

"When the turn of each and every maiden came," etc. — At the very opening of these words, the verse teaches us the difference between Israel and the nations: for the nations, whatever the case, in their gentile status have no lineage — which is not so with Israel. For in [the phrase] "every maiden," they [the nations] have no lineage attached to them; each one is merely called "a maiden," even though for most of them their fathers were still living. But Esther, even though she had neither father nor mother, and even though she was given over to Ahasuerus, her lineage remained intact. This is [the meaning of] "And when the turn of Esther the daughter of Avichail came," etc. (Esther 2:15). And it says that beyond their having, according to the law for the women, twelve months — oil of myrrh and spices, and the ointments of the women — each and every maiden, furthermore, would seek out delights and honor to bring with her from the house of the women to the king's house, in order to adorn herself before the king; whatever she would ask, she was given many maidens and great honor, to demonstrate importance and greatness, all the way to the king's house — so that he would look at her with an eye of significance, [hoping] perhaps he would make her queen in place of Vashti — and it was granted to her. This is [the meaning of] "whatever she asked was given her, to go with her," etc. And we shall add further insight on these two verses among those that follow, with the help of Heaven.

Questions: Why were the days of anointing twelve months? "And when [the turn] came" — now he relates the third point in time at which she showed that she was acting under compulsion, for even her coming to the king's house was under compulsion evident to all. And for this he prefaces by telling that every maiden, after her days of anointing were completed — which were twelve months [and this was to test the health of her body, for even though she was beautiful of form, it was possible that she had some internal ailment; therefore they tested her over the four seasons of the year, for there are ailments that occur only in one of the seasons and then depart — and these are called the days of anointing and testing. And for the six winter months they were anointed with oil of myrrh, which warms the limbs, while in the summer days they were treated with fragrant spices which remove the odors of decay that are present in those seasons] —

"Now when the turn of every maiden came," etc. (verse 12) — It appears [the point of] this verse is to say that the act of Ahasuerus was not conducted in the manner of licentiousness (zenut), since the maiden required twelve months of preparation before coming to Ahasuerus, as it is written (verse 13), "and thus the maiden would come to the king" — and this is not the manner of licentiousness. And likewise the verse after it, which states (verse 14), "in the evening she would come, and in the morning she would return, etc." And in the Gemara (Megillah 13a), Rabbi Yochanan said: from the disgrace of that wicked man we learn of his modesty, that he would not engage in marital relations during the day. And this he wrote [to show] that, to the greatest extent possible, this was conducted in a manner of modesty and not in the manner of licentiousness. And all of this he wrote for the honor of Esther, so that one should not say that this was done in the manner of licentiousness — for it would be a disgrace to Esther that she should be taken by a gentile in the manner of licentiousness. Therefore Scripture wrote that it was not in the manner of licentiousness, and was as free of disgrace as possible. And likewise what it says (verse 13), "and thus the maiden would come to the king — whatever she desired was given her to take with her, etc." — this too is for the same reason, that everything was done in an honorable manner. For when they would bring her to the king's house it was done in an honorable manner; and just as a bride is brought in with honor, so too this was done with honor: she was escorted by princes and dignitaries, or with musical instruments, or she would request the finest royal garments — everything was given to her to bring with her from the house of the women to the house of the king, all so that it would not be so disgraceful for Esther. And furthermore, it would have been astonishing for the redemption to come about through something that is licentiousness, which is repugnant and shameful. Therefore Scripture relates that the act was conducted in an honorable manner, and was not in the manner of licentiousness. And it is also possible to say that the verse speaks of the modesty of the wicked man, as it says (Megillah 13a), "From his disgrace we learn of the modesty of that wicked man." And these verses were written — even though it would not be fitting to speak in praise of a wicked man — only in order to say by what aspect it was that Esther fell into the lot of Ahasuerus, who was wicked. And it explains regarding this that he possessed modesty, and this is the very essence of Esther, as is explained in the Gemara (Megillah 13b), "the modesty of Esther." And the essential meaning of the name "Esther" indicates modesty (tzniut), for she would conceal (masteret) herself from everyone — she was so very modest — and therefore she fell into his lot. And this is why it says, "in the evening she came, and in the morning she returned," for this was said regarding the modesty of the wicked man.

Whatever she requested. Any entertainment and types of music.

"and with this" (u-va-zeh) — [meaning] with this matter, that she had permission to request whatever she wished; and this was so that she would not fall into worry and become gaunt.

Questions: Regarding "and then the maiden" — it is not known whether this is the completion of the previous verse, which lacks a predicate for its statement; and why did they give her whatever she asked for? "And then" — he says: behold, the entire arrangement that existed between the king and the maiden was as follows: on the maiden's part, the king sought only beauty and bodily health, and once her days of anointing were completed, so that it was known she was not sickly, with this the maiden would come to the king — for he sought no other quality from her. And on the king's part was this: that whatever she would say, when going from the house of the women to the king's house, would be given her to bring with her — that is, she had permission to ask for gifts and the like all along the way, and they would give her all the desires of her heart. And by this she showed that she was consenting to go of her own will and was not being forced, for on account of the gifts she gave herself over to lying [with the king]. This is the meaning of "then the maiden came" — of her own will.

To the second harem residence. The second שֵׁנִי=הַשֵּׁנִי. — Notes: (14) Those who were brought to the king were required to return to the second harem residence.

"to the house of the women, a second [house]" (el beit ha-nashim sheni) — the meaning is "a second time," and the term comes in masculine form [though modifying a feminine noun], like "ach ba-pa'am ha-zeh" (only this time) (Judges 16:28). And the meaning of "who kept the concubines" is that after the king had lain with her, no other man would lie with her, for that would be a disgrace to the king; rather she would remain among the concubines — except that if the king found none better than her, then he would make her queen.

It is fitting to pay attention: first, why were they taken out from Hegai's hand and given into Shaashgaz's hand, and did not return to their cage in the morning? Second, why does the text not relate, when Esther's turn came, her going out and coming in — whether it was through Shaashgaz or to Hegai's hand? Third, it appears that the counsel of the king's servants, his attendants, was not carried out. For they said, "and let their cosmetics be given," and "the maiden who pleases [the king]... shall reign in place of Vashti" — but afterward no process of selection is found in the text, only "and when many maidens were gathered together..." and "Esther was taken..."; and likewise a second time it says "Esther was taken..." — which implies that he set them all together to select the good from among the chaff. Yet the text testifies that he did as his attendants advised, as it says, "the matter pleased [the king]... and he did so." Fourth, why did this delay extend until the seventh year of his reign from the third year of his reign, when Vashti was deposed? Fifth, in saying "the king loved Esther more than all the women, and she found grace and favor before him more than all the maidens" — who are the "women" and who are the "maidens"? For behold, those who were gathered and brought there to Hegai's hand were maidens, and the counsel of the attendants was, "let them gather every maiden, a virgin," etc.; and the text testifies, "the matter pleased the king, and he did so" — so if so, they were all virgins. How then does it say "women" and "maidens"? This would seem strange according to the plain sense (peshat), though our Sages, of blessed memory, said that they also brought before him married women. And it is also difficult: [if so,] he should have combined them and stated them together, rather than saying "he loved... and she found favor..." separately, "more than all the women" and "the maidens." Sixth, in saying "and when the virgins were gathered a second time" — why did he gather them again a second time? And why, in this second gathering, does it mention only virgins and not mention women as in the previous verse? And also, when was this second gathering done? And not only that, but it merely says "and when [the virgins] were gathered...", etc. — and nothing further is said. Seventh, it is fitting to know what became of the women whom the king did not choose, for this is not mentioned. And if we say that they returned, each woman to her mother's house, is this not, for every single maiden, a matter of disgrace and vexation, that it be said of her that she was abandoned and of grieved spirit? Now, regarding the second gathering, they said that virgins from the kingdom who had not been present at the first gathering were gathered again, to see whether a better one than Esther could be found among them. But this is difficult: is it conceivable that after Esther had already been taken to the king, they would find her repugnant if a more [beautiful woman] were found? Moreover, after having gathered the maidens once, it would not occur to [the king] to make, after [some] time, a second gathering of those who had not been in the first — all the more so since a long time had passed in between, until the seventh year of his reign. Furthermore, up to this point [the text] had already related the manner of his conduct in his relations with his wives — the turn of every maiden, and the turn of Esther, etc. — which indicates that this was after Esther had already been taken to the king and had become his wife and queen in place of Vashti. How then does it afterward say "and she was taken," and that she found grace and favor in the eyes of the king and in the eyes of all who saw her, and that he loved her more than all the women and made her queen in place of Vashti? Surely all of this ought to have been stated before the account of the manner of relations that he had with her and with the rest of the maidens — that in the evening she would come, etc. However, there is no doubt that this king was modest in the way of the world (derech eretz), as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said — and this is why "in the evening she would come, and in the morning she would return." And I say that it was part of his modesty that all the maidens who came to Hegai's hand would not return again to their homes, for behold, his name had been called over them and he had gathered in their reproach; rather, whichever one pleased the king would reign in place of Vashti, and the rest would become concubines to the king. And this was the statement of his attendants: "and the maiden who pleases the king shall reign" — meaning, the rest would lack nothing except royalty itself. For surely they did not gather to Hegai's hand by the thousands or tens of thousands, but only the most beautiful of the most select, chosen individually, who alone were fit for the king — each and every maiden who would please him. And in order to fulfill the counsel of his attendants, he did not present them all at once before him when "many maidens were gathered to Shushan the capital" to Hegai's hand, to choose whichever pleased him in order to make her queen. For indeed his attendants had only advised him: "let their cosmetic treatments be given" first, and afterward that they be provided for themselves before marriage for twelve months — and that they should not all begin on the same day, their turns not all arriving together, but rather there would be a night['s interval] between one and the next: the turn of one maiden would arrive on one night, and the one after her on the second night, and so for all of them. And this is [the meaning of] "and when the turn of... arrived," etc. And this was the way he chose for himself: when the first one's turn arrived, if she did not please him enough to make her queen, she would remain his concubine from then on; and so the second, and so the third, until he arrived at one of them who pleased him — and thus the counsel of his attendants would be fulfilled, that after their cosmetic treatments he would choose whichever pleased him. And the intent was that each one, when her turn arrived, would lie with him on that night. Therefore each and every maiden, when her turn arrived, would request finery and adornments to present herself before the king on that night, hoping perhaps she would please him and succeed in becoming queen; and it would be given to her, as it says, "whatever she requested was given her," etc. And so our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said that when Esther's turn arrived, all of them adorned her in order to find favor in her eyes, for they said, "This one will surely reign now, and she will do good for us." Behold, this shows that when the turn arrived, the matter was contingent on whether she would please him enough to make her queen. And the text relates that as the turn of each and every maiden arrived, up to the arrival of Esther's turn — even though she was treated according to the law of the women, and whatever she requested was given her — not even one found favor to be made queen; rather, "in the evening she would come, and in the morning she would return" to the second house of the women — not to the first house where they had been under Hegai's hand, but rather, the second time, to the hand of Shaashgaz, keeper of the concubines. And the sixth [point]: Hegai's function, appointed by the king, was only to provide for them according to the law of the cosmetic treatments of the women for twelve months before being married to the king, as the statement of the king's servants, his attendants, said: "and let them gather every maiden..." to Hegai's hand, "and let their cosmetic treatments be given" — for they were placed in Hegai's hand only to give them their cosmetic treatments while each one was being provided for during the twelve months. But after the king had relations with her in the way of all the earth, and did not make her queen, and she remained a concubine, he would hand her over to Shaashgaz, keeper of the concubines. And except for the first time, when she came of her own accord when her turn arrived, she would not come afterward until the king desired her and she was called by name, according to the law of the king's concubines. And this is [the meaning of] "in the evening she would come," etc. But when the turn of Esther, daughter of Avichail, etc., arrived, she did not come in the evening and return in the morning to the hand of Shaashgaz, keeper of the concubines, for she was not a concubine; rather, "she was taken," etc., to his royal house — meaning that she would remain in the royal house, for she was pleasing in his eyes to be made queen, and would not return to the keeper of the concubines. For there is no doubt that whoever is queen has her own quarters, befitting her honor, in the royal house, near the king's own residence, apart from the house of the concubines. And this is [the meaning of] "and Esther was taken to his royal house," etc. It does not say that she "returned," as was said [of the others]; nor does it say "she came," but rather "she was taken" — for she did not come of her own accord, as we will explain, with God's help. Now, when Esther's turn arrived and she pleased him to be made queen, and she was taken inside to his royal house, he said in his heart: "Behold, I have examined every maiden whose time arrived and who had relations with me, and I sent them to Shaashgaz's hand; and this one I have loved to make queen above them all. But perhaps among those who are still virgins, whose turn has not yet arrived, there may be one better than Esther." Yet to say that she [Esther] should be delayed from being made queen until the turn of every remaining maiden was completed — after she had already pleased him — he would not do so. Therefore what did he do? He gathered the virgins whose turn had not yet arrived, who were still in their virginity, in order to see whether one of them might find more favor in his eyes than Esther, by looking at them all together and seeing that their appearance was good — but he did not find [any who pleased him more]. And this is what it says: "and the king loved Esther more than all the women" — the "women" being those who had already had relations and were no longer virgins — "and she found grace and favor before him more than all the virgins" whom he now gathered before him and before Esther. And how sweet are the words of the text in varying its expression: regarding the women who were no longer before him now, it says "the king loved," for the king recalled that when he had relations with each one of them, he did not love any of them as [much as] his love for Esther; but regarding these virgins whom he now set before him, "grace and favor" is the fitting expression, and so it says "and she found grace and favor before him more than all the virgins" — for her graciousness was greater in his eyes than all of them. And this is what it says afterward: "and when the virgins were gathered a second time" — for the first time the virgins were gathered to Hegai's hand, and afterward they were gathered a second time when the king made Esther queen. And this is why it says "virgins" — because he gathered a second time only those who still remained in their virginity. It follows that even the first [maiden] among them all — he did not unite with her until her twelve months were completed, for so the days of her cosmetic treatment had to be fulfilled. And from when the king began to appoint officers, until the gathering of the virgins to Shushan the capital, to Hegai's hand, and until the arrival of the first turn from the beginning of her cosmetic treatments, and through the continuation of the turns until Esther's turn — all together this was from the third year to the seventh year, and this is not a long time, relative to what was required for all the aforementioned process. And with this, the doubts that we mentioned here are resolved. This is the explanation in general terms; now let us come to the detailed exposition of the verses.

"In the evening" — even though in the evening she would come, and in the morning she would return to be confined in the house of the concubines and would not come to the king again, nevertheless they consented and went willingly, with the desire of their heart.

"she requested nothing" (lo vikshah davar) — this too is a sign of her intelligence [sikhlah].

Behold, the account of Esther's lineage — that she was the daughter of Abihail, and that Abihail was the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for a daughter — all of this appears to be unnecessary. Likewise, why this expression of taking, "and Esther was taken," rather than saying "and Esther came to the king," as with each and every maiden, of whom it is said that she came? Afterward it relates that he loved her and that he made her queen. Likewise it says, "and he set the royal crown on her head, and made her queen" — it would suffice to say "and he made her queen," and the crown would be included within that; all the more so since it is not the way of Scripture to relate how one is made queen — whether with a crown or without a crown. Furthermore, it should have said, "and he made her queen, and gave her the royal crown," for first comes the resolution/consent, and one is made queen by verbal proclamation, and afterward they place the crown on her head. Furthermore, it says "instead of Vashti," which is superfluous, and this is what compelled our Sages, of blessed memory, to say that he removed Vashti's portrait from before the bed and put Esther's portrait there — and this is the meaning of "and he made her queen instead of Vashti." But there is no doubt that all that is mentioned in the Gemara is meant to give a reason why Esther transgressed and was not killed, rather than submit to intimacy with Ahasuerus — saying that she was like the ground of the earth, and the like — yet one must still say that it was under compulsion and not of her own will. Now, there was room to suspect her, for by reason of her abundant adornments — ornament upon ornament — which she increased out of desire for royal favor, she found favor and kindness, in such a way that, if this were the case, she would indeed be culpable, for it would turn out that the abomination was done willingly and not under compulsion. Therefore Scripture comes and testifies that, on the contrary, she was fleeing from this, and was not seeking to be pleasing in the eyes of the king; for it was Hashem Tzevaot who gave her favor in the eyes of all who saw her, and in the eyes of the king it was Hashem Tzevaot who ordained that she would succeed to the monarchy, for the reason mentioned above — for she indeed had within her the very opposite of all other women, in her modesty. For behold, when the turn of each and every maiden arrived, etc., at the end of her twelve months according to the law of the women, she would still request preparations, delicacies, and honor to accompany her from the house of the women to the house of the king, so as to make herself attractive in his eyes — and it would be given to her. And further, secondly, that she would come in the evening, for each one would come of her own accord, joyful of heart; but Esther was not so — rather, what is meant by "when the turn of Esther came" refers to what Esther was in and of herself. Second: from the fact of her being the daughter of Abihail, who was righteous; and to indicate that he was righteous, they traced his lineage after Mordecai, saying "the uncle of Mordecai," meaning, resembling him. Third: that "he had taken her for a daughter" — for he did not merely support her because she was an orphan related to him, but rather she was in the category of an actual daughter, for this can only mean that he raised her with very good upbringing; therefore she requested nothing except whatever Hegai advised, for she was like one coerced, whom he would adorn against her will, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said, that Hegai would say to her, "Why do you render my head liable to the king, since you do not wish to adorn yourself?" And further, fourth: that every maiden would come of her own free will, whereas this one — "and Esther was taken," etc. — for since she was not acting willingly, she did not go until Hegai and her other bearers took her. And if you should ask: if so, how did the king desire her so greatly, seeing that the other maidens would return to the hand of Shaashgaz, in charge of the concubines, while this one remained in the royal house? To this it answers: "and Esther was bearing favor," etc. Now, if one pays attention to the expression "bearing favor" rather than "finding favor," this comes to say that she did not find favor in the eyes of others; rather, she herself bore upon herself favor from Him, may He be blessed, for a thread of kindness was drawn over her face. And here is a further proof of how the matter came forth from Hashem, and not from her adorning herself: for there is surely no doubt that it would be more precious to find favor in the eyes of the king than in the eyes of onlookers, yet in her case it was the opposite — for she found favor doubly in the eyes of the king compared to the eyes of all who beheld her. For behold, "and Esther was bearing favor" — only in the eyes of all who beheld her; but in the eyes of the king, she bore favor and also kindness — and this is the meaning of "and she bore favor and kindness before him more than all the maidens." And here is a further, third proof: since "Esther was taken" and did not come of her own accord, one would have expected that he would remove her from his heart; yet on the contrary, "and the king loved her," etc. And not only that, but "and he set the royal crown on her head" — he did not command any one of his chamberlains to place the crown on her head, but he himself did so — "and he set the crown," etc. — for love upsets the proper order. And not only that, but "and he made her queen instead of Vashti" — he esteemed her as equal to Vashti, who had been the daughter of great kings, and she became in his eyes as one who filled her place — and this is the meaning of "instead of Vashti." Or, one might say that in his eyes, relative to Vashti, it was as though this one were truly queen, while the other, Vashti, had merely the name without the actual royalty — and this is why it does not say "instead of Vashti the queen" or "Vashti the queen," as kings are usually mentioned with the title of royalty even after their death. And all of this indicates the righteousness of Esther — that it was not as a queen that she was intimate with Ahasuerus; her heart was not set upon greatness, but rather the monarchy came to her from Hashem by means of King Ahasuerus, for the reason mentioned regarding the verse, "There was a Jew." And in the Gemara: "And Esther was bearing favor" — Rabbi Elazar said, this teaches that she appeared to each and every one as being of his own nation. End of citation. Now, nothing of this is apparent from the verse itself; but he was troubled by the same question as ours — that it ought to have said "finding favor," yet from the expression "bearing" it appears that there was upon her a burden of favor. And when any man, of whatever nation, would see her with such great favor, he would reason in his heart that this could only be due to a kinship of his own birth with her — like a man who sees a relative of his own family: even though he does not recognize him, his affection grows, and his heart is drawn very close to her.

Questions: Why does he mention Esther's lineage here a second time, and [why does he mention] that Abihail was Mordecai's uncle? Why did she not ask for anything, and if it was by chance, why does the author of the book relate it? And for what purpose does he say here specifically that she found favor, when he already said this above? "And when [the turn] came" — he says: see that with Esther it was the opposite of all the [other] women. Behold, what she gave to the king on her own part was not beauty and health alone; rather, she possessed the strength and preciousness of being the daughter of Abihail — that her character traits and qualities were good and her intellect was whole, on account of her lineage from her righteous father. And he [her father] was Mordecai's uncle, [and it was Mordecai] who raised her and brought these good faculties of hers to actualized perfection. This is what she brought to the king. But what she took from the king on his part — that is, that by which she would come of her own will, without compulsion — she asked for nothing, for she showed in practice that she was compelled and was not consenting to him. Therefore it says "and when Esther's turn came to go in" — meaning that only the turn pressed her and forced her to this, and her heart did not consent to come. Therefore she wanted nothing except what Hegai himself gave her, which he forced her to take. And even though at this point she had forfeited her life to the king this third time, nevertheless "Esther obtained favor" — and this covered over all her transgressions.

"Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail... came, etc." (verse 15) — Here she is identified by reference to her father, because now Mordecai has been separated from her — she who had been considered a wife to Mordecai and used to be called by Mordecai's name, [in accordance with] "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife" (Genesis 2:24). Therefore a woman is identified after her husband more than she is identified after her father. And therefore above (verse 7) it does not identify her at all after her father, but only after Mordecai. But here, since she was taken to Ahasuerus, it identifies her after her father. Nevertheless it also says "the uncle of Mordecai, whom he had taken for himself as a daughter," for it is also fitting to identify her after Mordecai, as they said in the Gemara (Megillah 13b), that she would rise up from Ahasuerus's lap and go sit in Mordecai's lap. Therefore she is identified after both her father and Mordecai. One may also explain according to the plain sense: it comes to say that Esther was a woman of standing, for she was the daughter of Abihail, who was a man of standing and reputation and was an uncle of Mordecai — and despite all this she requested nothing when she came in to the king. For had she requested something, that would have been as though she desired and wanted to come to the king, and that would certainly have been forbidden. But if someone else did something [on her behalf], she was not obligated to protest it. For it would be a disgrace to the king to nullify something that is an honor to the king — bringing the young woman in to him in an honorable way — and certainly regarding that she was not obligated to protest at all. But she herself requested nothing. "And Esther obtained favor" — Even though this was already written above (verse 7), "and the maiden was of beautiful form and fair to look upon," this verse comes to say that when she was taken to Ahasuerus, everyone then scrutinized her closely, [wondering] what beauty was in her that she should be taken for the king. Therefore it says that the more closely people looked at her, the more she obtained favor, and therefore Scripture wrote this verse here. But according to what they expounded in Megillah (13a) — "And Esther obtained favor in the eyes of all who beheld her": Rabbi Eliezer said, this teaches that she appeared to each person as though she were of his own nation — Scripture wrote this here because once Esther was taken to the king's house, she was from then on queen. And Scripture explains that Esther was fitting for this, to be Esther who reigned over all the provinces, in that she appeared to each one as though she were of his own nation, so that her kingship was now in complete perfection. For every nation seeks a queen from its own nation, since it is fitting that the queen have a bond and relation to those over whom she reigns. Therefore it says, "And Esther obtained favor in the eyes of all who beheld her." And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 6:9): "And Esther obtained favor in the eyes of all who beheld her" — the Rabbis say: in the eyes of the beings above and in the eyes of the beings below. This matter, too, is just like the fact that Esther obtained favor in the eyes of all who beheld her, and as we said above (Megillah 13a) that Esther was of medium [stature], like a myrtle, whose medium quality is equally fitting for all — as we said above. And therefore she likewise appeared to each one as though she were of his own nation, to the point that she was equal to all. And so too she obtained favor in the eyes of the beings above, for Esther herself was equal to all, and Esther did not depart from that equality and fitness toward all; therefore she obtained favor in the eyes of all, above and below. And certainly this serves to establish Esther's rank, that she possessed modesty (tzeniut), which is the inward, hidden quality that is equal for all.

In the tenth month. The cold season, when one body enjoys [the warmth of] another body. The Holy One Blessed Is He, designated that cold season in order to endear her to him. — Notes: (15) Maseches Megillah 13a.

"that is the month Tevet" — thus it is called in the Chaldean tongue; and the months are called in the holy tongue [Hebrew] by number, counting from [the month of] the Aviv [Nisan, spring].

"And she was taken" — now he concludes that even the final stage of her coming to the king's chamber was under compulsion, for this is the meaning of "and she was taken" — against her will. And he relates that she was not taken to the king's house in general, but to "his royal house" — the chamber specifically designated for the king.

"And Esther was taken" (verse 16). In the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 6:10): "And Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus" — it was raised up amid an outcry of voices: this one said, 'I will give a hundred dinars and go in with her,' and that one said, 'I will give two hundred and go in with her.' [The Midrash] comes to resolve why it is written 'and Esther was taken' — [for] if it comes to say that she was taken against her will, this was already written above (verse 8), 'and Esther was taken.' According to the plain sense (peshat), one can resolve this by saying that it comes to teach that everything was done through compulsion — that is, the beginning of her being taken by the hand of Hegai (ibid.), and likewise her being taken into the hand of Ahasuerus to his house, all of it was through compulsion. But the master of the Midrash explains that Esther was so beloved in everyone's eyes that each one said he wished to go along with her, when they saw that they were bringing her to the king. And therefore it is written 'vatilakach' ("she was taken") in the passive (nifal) form, for every passive-form verb indicates that [the action] was done through another. If so, there was publicity about this — and indeed there was such publicity and talk about it, that each one said he would give such-and-such an amount so that he might go along with her. "In the seventh year of his reign" (verse 16). We have already explained why it is written above (1:3) 'in the third year of his reigning (le-molkho)' [in a verbal form], whereas here it is written 'in the seventh year of his kingship (le-malchuto)' [in a noun form]. For above, he did not yet have settledness (hanachah), for he was conquering continually until the third year, and therefore it says 'le-molkho' — meaning that he was conquering them and reigning over them, and this is called 'le-molkho,' [the state of] one who rules and reigns over them. But here, where he had already come to rest, and his kingdom was his in tranquility, it writes 'le-malchuto.' And even though it was not seven years since his malchut [in this settled sense] — rather, only four years that he sat in tranquility, for three years were spent in war* — nevertheless, since he now sits in tranquility, it is regarded as though his kingship had been complete from its very beginning, for the end proves concerning the beginning, that his kingship was complete from the very first hour. Therefore it writes 'in the seventh year of his kingship.' And it writes this to state the reason that Esther was married to Ahasuerus: it says that Ahasuerus had a complete readiness for the righteous woman Esther to be married to him as a wife, because this came about through the modesty (tzeniut) that was in him. This is shown by the fact that he waited four years until he found a woman fitting for him, as will be explained shortly. Therefore Esther was made ready for him, since he was modest. And as for what it adds by saying 'in the month of Tevet' — since it is already written 'in the tenth month,' it is certainly the month of Tevet. One might say that if it were not written 'in the month of Tevet,' one would have thought that 'the tenth month' comes only to state in which month [this occurred], and not to teach that she was taken then because 'the body enjoys the body,' as we say in the Gemara (Megillah 13a): '"in the month of Tevet"*' — Rav Chisda said, (-Rosh Chodesh-) [the month] in which the body enjoys the body. But now that it is already written 'in the month of Tevet,' why then do I need 'in the tenth month'? Rather, it comes to say that the tenth month is the coldest time of all the months, and this was from Heaven. And one can further say that 'the month of Tevet' comes to indicate that this is the point at which the world begins to emerge from darkness, and the sun begins to draw near to the inhabited world from the time of the tekufah (solstice) of Tevet, and the light begins to increase. And from the time that Esther was taken to the royal house, this was the beginning of the light of the redemption, and therefore it is written 'in the month of Tevet.' And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 1:15): '"In the third year of his reign he made a feast for all... etc."' (above, 1:3) — Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nechemiah [disagree]. Rabbi Yehudah says: in the third year of the work on the throne — once he had finished the work on the throne, 'he made a feast for all his officers and servants.' And Rabbi Nechemiah says: in the third year since the cessation of the work on the Temple — once three years had passed since the cessation of the Temple['s rebuilding], 'he made a feast for all his officers and servants.' Rabbi Shmuel bar Ami said: this man had four good qualities: he spent three years without a crown and without a throne; he waited four years until he found a wife fitting for him; and he did nothing without taking counsel. And Rabbi Pinchas said: and whoever did him a kindness, he would write it down — this is what is written (below, 6:2), 'And it was found written that Mordechai had reported, etc.' And the explanation of this is: for three years, since the kingship was not yet fully held in his hand — even though they had already made him king — nevertheless he had no settledness, as was said above. And he waited four years until he found a woman fitting for the kingship. And these two things are equivalent: just as, throughout the time that the kingship was not [fully] in his hand, he did not want to place the royal crown on his head until everything was in his hand and his mind had settled, (-and afterward-) so too he waited a further four years until he found a woman fitting for the kingship, and his mind was settled regarding her because she was fitting for the kingship. And then he had settledness, both settledness with respect to the kingship and with respect to his wife. For he had a wife fit for the kingship, particularly for his kingship, since he was king over the entire world. And because Ahasuerus had been a commoner (hedyot) and [then] became king, it does not stand to reason that he should rise all at once to a kingship of quiet and tranquility, since he did not inherit the kingship, and the royal crown had not been on his head [from the start]. Therefore he waited until the third year. But even so, he did not rise to complete tranquility — to have a wife fitting for him for the kingship, particularly for his kingship which spanned the entire world — until the seventh year. For after seven years had passed in which he separated from what he had been, a commoner, (-and-) he came into the category of [true] kingship. For everywhere, the point of separation is at seven, as this matter has been explained elsewhere, that seven are what separate. And this is not called rising from what he had been, a commoner, to what he became, a king, all at once — for seven years constitute the separation between what he had been, a commoner, and what he became, a king. And after seven [years], he had a queen fitting to reign in the world.

More than all the women. The married ones; for he also gathered married women. — Notes: (16) Ibid.

Questions: Who are "the women" and who are "the virgins"? And [why] the change of language — love, and grace, and favor? "And [the king] loved" — without doubt Ahasuerus already had wives and concubines from before, and with respect to them the term "love" applies; and with respect to the virgins who had come so that one of them would be made queen, the term "obtaining grace" applies, [meaning grace] toward making her queen. And in both [categories] Esther surpassed all of them, to the point that he himself placed the crown upon her head out of his abundant love for her, and made her queen at once.

"And the king loved Esther more than all the women, and she obtained grace and favor before him more than all the virgins, etc." (verse 17). It appears that its interpretation is: "and he loved Esther more than all the women" — this refers to when he knew that she was suitable, and in this context the term "virgin" does not apply, for this does not depend on that [factor]; rather, he was seeking a suitable wife, and so he loved Esther more than all the women. And it further states "and she obtained grace and favor before him more than all the virgins" — this matter certainly concerns beauty, and in this context the term "virgins" is applicable, for virgins possess more grace/charm. This is how its plain sense appears to be explained. And it further appears possible to explain: "and he loved Esther more than all the women" — these are the ones who were with him and had already had intimate relations with him; "and she obtained grace and favor more than all the virgins" — these are the ones who had not had relations with him, and were awaiting relations. Regarding the "women" it says "and he loved," because love is a complete bond — since he had become bonded to her through intimacy, it is fitting to say "and he loved Esther more than all the women." But regarding the virgins who had not had relations with him, and with whom he had no bond, it says "and she obtained grace and favor." And so they explained it in the Gemara (Megillah 13a): "And the king loved Esther, etc." — Scripture calls her "woman" and calls her "virgin." Rav Chisda said: If he wished to taste the taste of a virgin, he tasted it; if to taste the taste of a be'ulah [a woman who had had relations], he tasted it — thus far [the Gemara's words]. This explanation, too, means that he loved her "more than all the women" — these being the virgins who had already had relations with Ahashverosh — "and she obtained grace more than all the virgins" — those who had not had relations with him. And Scripture had to write both, because at times he desired a be'ulah. Therefore it states that with Esther, everything was present: if he wanted a be'ulah*, he would taste it, and if he wanted a virgin, he would taste it. And this was so for Esther, because Esther was not considered by Ahashverosh to be a be'ulah, since she rightly belonged to Mordechai, and Esther was regarded as Mordechai's wife; and if so, she had no bond with Ahashverosh. Therefore, when he wished to taste the taste of a virgin, Esther was to him as though Ahashverosh had never come upon her, since Ahashverosh had no bond with her. And when he wished to taste the taste of a be'ulah, he would taste it, since after all she was Ahashverosh's wife. And since there were two aspects to Queen Esther — from one side she was considered a be'ulah, and from the other side she was considered a virgin — he could therefore taste whichever he wished, since Esther was ready for both. And in the Midrash, Rabbi Chelbo said: He gathered be'ulot [non-virgins] as well. He means to say: even though it is written only "virgins," this is because he had the virgins brought by the hand of Hegai, but the be'ulot he had brought directly before himself; if they were pleasing in his eyes, he took them, and did not bring them to the hand of Hegai. And he derives this from the fact that it is written "more than all the women," and the word "all" comes to include the be'ulot. "and he made her queen instead of Vashti" — as for why it was necessary to say "instead of Vashti," when it would have sufficed to say only "and he made her queen" — Scripture wished to convey that even though there was a certain measure of disgrace in his taking a wife who was not of royal lineage, it therefore says "and he made her queen instead of Vashti" — [meaning] that Esther stood in the place of Vashti, who was of royal lineage. And since she stood in Vashti's place, even though she herself was not of royal lineage, it was regarded by Ahashverosh as though she were of royal lineage, just as he had originally had a wife of royal lineage, and now he set Esther in her place. And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, part 2, §1053): "and he made her queen instead of Vashti" — Rabbi Levi said: an icon of Vashti was above his bed, and when Esther came in, he removed the icon of Vashti and set up an icon of Esther [in its place] — this is [the meaning of] what is written, "and he made her queen instead of Vashti" — thus far [the Midrash's words]. And the explanation of the Midrash is that it means to explain what is written, "instead of Vashti" — that the icon of Vashti and her likeness was before him always after her execution, and when he married Esther, Vashti was no longer in his mind and thought — and this is [the meaning of] what is written, "and he made her queen instead of Vashti." And as for what it says, "that the icon of Vashti was above his bed," this means that when he would lie on his bed, the image of Vashti was opposite him. But it does not seem correct to explain this to mean that there was literally an icon of Vashti on his bed, for after Vashti had been executed, why would he keep an icon of Vashti on his bed? Rather, [the meaning is] that her icon did not depart from his thoughts.

He waived the colonial taxes. In her honor he released them from the tax that was [levied] upon them. — Notes: (17) Ibid. (18) Because he did not know Esther’s ancestry Achashveirosh tried to the draw the secret from her. He waived the taxes of all the provinces and she still did not tell him. However, once he was apprized of her ancestry he restored the tax; below 10:1. (Gra) And [he] lavished gifts. He sent them gifts, and everything was in order to entice her, perhaps she would reveal her nationality. But nevertheless, — Notes: (19) Maseches Megillah 13a.

"and a release" (ha-nachah) — a noun like "menuchah" (rest), on account of his joy in Esther. "gifts" (mas'et) — [meaning] a gift, like "mas'et Binyamin" (Benjamin's portion) (Genesis 43:34).

Questions: Why did he call it "Esther's feast" — is it not known that it was on account of the taking of Esther? And why did he give a release and gifts? "And [the king] made" — now he relates that even after the king had already made her queen, and she still had not told her people and her kindred, the king employed many stratagems so that she would tell from which people she was, and he tested her in three ways: (1) With respect to honor — he made a great feast for all his officers and servants, and called this feast by the name "Esther's feast," [implying] that it was she who was making this feast; and he thought that perhaps by this the love of honor would be aroused in her, so that she would be ashamed before the officers that she was a foundling whose kindred was unknown, and would tell. (2) With respect to doing good for her people — he made a release for the provinces, on the chance that this might be the province in which Esther was born, and by this she would be aroused to tell her province, knowing that then he would do even more good for the people of her province and her nation. (3) He gave precious gifts according to the bounty of the king, and by this she would be aroused to enrich the people of her kindred, and would tell her kindred so that they too would receive gifts.

"Then the king made a great feast" (verse 18) — But above (1:3) it is not written "a great feast," because there was no need to write it, since the nature and quality of that feast had already been described. But here, since it was not described in detail, it was necessary to say that it was a great feast. And as for the fact that at this feast he "made a release to the provinces and gave gifts, according to the bounty of the king," this is because it was fitting that this be done specifically at this feast, since he had married a wife — for a man without a wife is lacking, and one who is himself lacking cannot bestow upon another. But through a wife he becomes complete, and one who is complete in himself then bestows upon others. But one who is lacking in himself — how could he bestow upon another? Therefore here, since he had married a wife, it is written "and gave gifts, according to the bounty of the king." We have already explained that Ahasuerus was not considered complete even in the third year of his reign, until he married Esther, and then he was completely whole, since he had a wife, and therefore it was then fitting for him to bestow upon others. And in the chapter Bameh Madlikin (Shabbat 25b), Rabbi Akiva said: Who is rich? One who has a wife who is comely in her deeds. And we explained there that wealth is an acquisition for a person, and there is no acquisition more important than a wife, and this is called a person's wealth. And since Ahasuerus already had great wealth, and now he had also acquired Esther, this was an even greater wealth. And one who has great wealth bestows upon others. Therefore it is written that he made a release and gave gifts, according to the bounty of the king. And it further appears to me that when he saw what had happened at the first feast — that the Satan was dancing and it brought about the killing of Vashti — he said that this was caused only by the excess of eating and drinking, which lasted a hundred and eighty days (above, 1:4); this is what caused it, for it was nothing but a squandering of money and a pursuit after desires. Therefore now he would not do this again; rather, it is better not to hold numerous feasts, and instead the money should go toward making a release to the provinces and giving them gifts, according to the bounty of the king. Therefore it is written "Then the king made a great feast," meaning that it was great in the abundance of people, and therefore it is written "even Esther's feast," meaning a feast that was fitting for Esther, not a pursuit after eating and drinking. For this was not merely a single feast, as it is written "a great feast" [implying more than one]; and this matter will be explained further.

"and when the virgins were gathered together a second time" — the meaning is that this was the second time; Mordecai was already sitting at the king's gate, for this was in the seventh year of the reign, whereas the feast concerning the matter of Vashti was in the third year. And the Sages said that Israel became liable for death because they ate at the king's table and drank of the wine of his feasts.

"And when [the virgins] were gathered together [a second time]" — it is fitting to know what connection the second gathering of the virgins has to Mordecai's sitting in the king's gate. Furthermore, in the statement "Esther did not tell," what is the point of repeating this here, seeing that it was already mentioned above? And furthermore, the statement "Esther did the bidding of Mordecai" appears to be superfluous words. Now, according to our approach, let us pay attention to the fact that above it said, "Esther had not told her people nor her kindred," putting "her people" before "her kindred," whereas here it is the reverse, saying "her kindred and her people." And if we say that it is because Mordecai was now in the king's gate that Esther did not tell — meaning that he had commanded her [not to tell for that reason] — this is difficult, because even without this, it would be proper for her not to tell, on account of the first command, that he had commanded her not to tell. Furthermore, the statement "Esther did not tell" indicates that of her own accord she did not tell, for she relied on the first command. However, in saying "sitting in the king's gate," this means that he had become a head and officer, as it says, "and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom" (Genesis 19:1), [meaning] that they had appointed him a judge over them. Now, we wrote above that it was from Hashem to elevate Mordecai and Esther, in order to bring Hashem's vengeance upon Haman, for two redeemers were needed, as stated above; and therefore they rose not by the natural way, for the matter came about from Hashem. Now, regarding Esther, the verses have already recounted how, against nature, she rose and rose again. However, as for Mordecai's sitting in the king's gate in a position of rank, the mind would judge it to be nothing other than that when they made Esther queen, she spoke well of Mordecai, and by her word he rose in rank. It says: See now, this is not so! For behold, at the gathering of the virgins a second time, to see which one would please the king to be made queen, Mordecai was already sitting in the king's gate — in such a way that it was not through Esther that he rose, but rather from Him, may He be blessed, not by nature, even though he was a Jew. And should you say that even though she had not spoken about him to elevate him — perhaps, even though she had not told when she was taken, she told afterward, and when her kinship became known to the king, he elevated him — this too was not so, for behold, even now Esther did not tell her kindred or her people. And if she had not told her kindred, how could they have elevated him to greatness on account of his kinship to her? And since the matter relevant to the subject at hand is the telling of her kindred, here it placed "her kindred" before "her people." Now, above we wrote, from the words of our Rabbis of blessed memory, that because Mordecai was fleeing from power, he commanded her not to tell. If so, then, after He, may He be blessed, acted in accordance with His good attribute toward one who flees from power — that power pursues him — and elevated him and granted him a seat in the king's gate, now, after this, permission is given into Esther's hand to tell her kindred, for the reason [for concealment] has been nullified, and they elevated him of their own accord. So from now on, why should she stand guard to tell nothing, as had been the case, when she concealed it until [she said], "for we have been sold," to Haman? Therefore it says, "and Esther did the bidding of Mordecai, as when she was raised with him" — to say that just as when she was raised with him she used to fulfill his word without regard to reason, but simply because he was a father and patron to her, so too now she did not set her heart upon the reason for his command to her, to say, "Behold, the reason for his command has been nullified, so I will tell something" — rather, she directed the whole aim of her mind to fulfilling his word in a manner of unquestioning wonder, without any regard [for reasons], just as she had been when she was raised with him. And according to the other reasons which we wrote above concerning the absence of the telling, it says: See now the kindness of God, may He be blessed — that before He raised up Haman in order to purge our sins, He had already raised up Mordecai and Esther to destroy him; for behold — "And when the virgins were gathered" — for at that time the completion of Esther's rank had already occurred, and Mordecai had risen and was sitting [in the gate], etc. — and this was not on account of Esther, but rather the matter came forth from Hashem, and not by nature; for behold, "Esther did not tell," etc. — as if to say that it was through her that he rose. But lest you say that the reason why, after they had made her queen, she did not tell, was because it was not in keeping with her honor to reveal that she was of the seed of the Jews, who were wretched, despised, and lowly in exile — concerning this it says that it was not so, but rather [we learn from] "Esther did the bidding of Mordecai," etc., that just as in her lowliness, when she was being raised with him, being an orphan, [she obeyed him,] so also after she attained royalty, she did the thing in order to fulfill his word. Now, our Rabbis of blessed memory said regarding "and the bidding of..." etc.: Rabbah bar Lima said in the name of Rav that she would rise from the lap of Ahasuerus, immerse, and sit in the lap of Mordecai. Thus far [the quotation]. And it is possible that what led them to say this is that the word "did" (osah) troubled them: for if it refers back to the fact that she did not tell her kindred, etc., the term "doing" would not be fitting, for that matter was one of restraint ("sitting and not doing"); rather, it indicates that it concerns an active deed — and this is the matter of her immersing, etc. And still it would have been possible to say that it was some other active matter, and not such a strange thing as this. But they were also troubled by its saying "be'omnah ito" ("as when she was raised with him"), for it would have been proper to say "be'omno otah" (when he was raising her); rather, it is two things: for it was not only through the omission of telling, in the manner of restraint, that she fulfilled his command, but also every bidding of Mordecai did Esther perform, even in an active matter. And this applies both to the things she used to do during her upbringing ("be'omnah"), which was at the time he was raising her, when she was young, and also to what she did while actually being with him — that she would count [the days of] her niddah, and immerse, and serve his bed. Therefore it says "be'omnah," which is a distinct/singular expression, meaning: in the state of being fostered, which was the time when he was raising her, before he married her, and also when she was with him after she had grown up; and this follows the view of the one who says [that concerning] "Mordecai took her to him for a daughter (le-vat)" — do not read "le-vat" but "le-vayit" ("for a house," i.e., as a wife). It is also possible, in analyzing the language of the verse, that we may note grammatically its saying "the bidding of..." etc. — for it entered with the word "command" (tzivah) and exited with the word "bidding" (ma'amar). But this is, according to the reason mentioned above, that the whole main intent of Mordecai in commanding her not to tell concerned her people — that they should not know that she was a Jewess, so that if a decree should be issued against her people, they would not exclude her from the general [decree], in such a way that she could then rescue [her people] by saying that it would be a disgrace to the king for his wife to be included among the doomed — as indeed happened to her, when she said, "for we are sold, I and my people," etc. — which is not the case if they had known from the start that she was a Jewess, for then they would have excluded her from the scope of the decree, and she would have had no opening [to plead], as stated above. And likewise this is also true according to the second reason of our Rabbis of blessed memory, as he wrote — except that, according to his approach, in commanding her not to tell her people, he also told her not to tell her kindred, so that she should not say that she was of the house of David and Mordecai's relative, since he was fleeing from power. And this is what it said above, "Esther had not told her people nor her kindred" — for the main point, essentially and primarily, concerns her people, and incidentally it also concerns her kindred. Now, according to this, it says that once Mordecai was sitting in the king's gate and had attained power, could she not then tell her kindred, to say that she was Mordecai's relative, since the reason for his fleeing from power had already passed — but she would still not tell her people, since even Mordecai himself was not known to be a Jew, until he later told them that he was a Jew? It says that even after Mordecai was sitting in the king's gate, having attained power, nevertheless Esther did not tell her kindred — that she was Mordecai's relative — as though this were the main point, and this is why it is mentioned first, with "and her people" coming incidentally to it. And should you say, surely the main intent of Mordecai's command concerned the [Jewish] people, and he mentioned himself only incidentally, and how much more so now that he had attained power, since the reason [for concealment] has been nullified — therefore it says, "as Mordecai had commanded her," etc., for she reasoned that it could not be otherwise: if this too was included within the scope of the command, it was proper to fulfill it — and this is [the meaning of] "as Mordecai had commanded her." And even if the main point was concerning her people, and what it concluded by saying, "and her kindred," was only a passing remark — and how much more so now — nevertheless, "and the bidding of Mordecai," even if it was not by way of formal command but merely a passing remark that came from his mouth, "Esther did," etc. And this follows the moral teaching stated by our Rabbis of blessed memory, that one who tells something to his fellow — even if he does not tell him explicitly that he may reveal it — it is forbidden to reveal it until he tells him so explicitly; and this is why in every single passage it says to Moses, "to say" (le'emor) [i.e., an explicit instruction to relay the message]. And also, the matter came forth from Hashem to conceal her kindred even now; for behold, "in those days ... Bigthan became wroth," etc. (Esther 2:21) — and had it been known in the king's gate that Mordecai was related to the queen, they would have said that there was a conspiracy between the queen and Mordecai to cast that poison, in order to eliminate Bigthan and Teresh so as to install Mordecai in their place. Or, according to the view stated by our Rabbis of blessed memory, that it was because the king had placed Mordecai in their position, and that this was why they did what they did — they would have said that this was done so that they should not return through defenders or the like and depose Mordecai. Therefore it was best that it come about through the concealment of her kindred, and with this, the connection of the verse with what precedes and what follows is established.

The Questions: What was this second gathering, since he had already made Esther queen? And what is the point here of mentioning that Mordecai sat in the king's gate? "And when the virgins were gathered together" [a second time] — Even if she had been afraid to tell of her birth, lest she be from a lowly and despised people and the king would drive her away, here he had already gathered the remaining virgins who had not yet been taken, and sent them to their houses, so that her heart could be confident that the king would not choose another. And furthermore, that Mordecai had been raised up to sit in the king's gate on seats of judgment like one of the officers — which they did for him because they found her in his house — by this she surely trusted all the more that they would show him greatness and honor if they knew that she was his uncle's daughter.

"And when the virgins were gathered together the second time" (verse 19) — The interpretation appears to be that they were not all gathered together at one time; rather, some were gathered together on one occasion and brought to the king, and now more were gathered together a second time and were likewise brought to the king. And even though they had already made Esther queen, nevertheless more virgins were gathered now — for even if he did not desire them for royalty, he would still always keep young women, and they would be his concubines. And as for what it says (here), "and Mordecai sat in the king's gate" — its meaning is that when the virgins were gathered together the second time, Mordecai feared lest Esther tell of her people and her lineage, since a woman is jealous only of her rival-wife (literally, "her fellow's thigh"); therefore "Mordecai sat in the king's gate," so that Esther would then see before her Mordecai, who had commanded her not to tell (above, verse 10), and she would certainly not transgress [his command]. But in the Gemara (Megillah 13a): "And when the virgins were gathered together the second time" — [Ahasuerus] went and took counsel from Mordecai. He [Mordecai] said to him: A woman is jealous only of her rival-wife, and nevertheless "Esther did not tell..." etc. According to this, the meaning would be: "And when the virgins were gathered together the second time," etc. — and who gave the counsel to gather the virgins a second time? Concerning this it says, "and Mordecai sat in the king's gate" — meaning that he gave this counsel, and nevertheless (verse 20) "Esther did not tell..." etc. And it seems to me that Mordecai gave this counsel to Ahasuerus because Mordecai feared that Ahasuerus would become angry at her since she was unwilling to tell her lineage. And now that Mordecai gave him this counsel, Ahasuerus would think that her lineage would become known to him through this matter, even though not so immediately, and meanwhile his soul would become more bound to Esther, as she would remain with him for some time, and then, because of his love [for her], he would not do anything to her. And according to the plain sense, it appears that what it says, "Esther did not tell..." etc., should be explained thus: even though this was already written above (verse 10), one might have thought that it was specifically before Esther attained royalty that she did not tell of her people and her lineage, so that people would not speak slander of her to bring her down; but after she had attained royalty, she would have no fear that they would scheme against her to bring her down. Therefore it writes this a second time, [to teach] that even after she had entered into royalty she still did not tell.

Esther would not reveal [the identity of] her heritage. Because Mordechai was sitting in the king’s gate; he encouraged her and hinted to her about it.

"Esther had not yet made known her kindred" — neither to the king, nor to the chamberlains whom he had stationed before her. "as when she was brought up" (be-omnah) — from the same root as "ka'asher yisa ha-omen" (as a nursing-father carries) (Numbers 11:12), and it is a noun formed like "chochmah" (wisdom) itself.

The Questions: Why does it repeat that Esther did not tell her people and her birth, when this had already been said? And the plain sense of the language indicates that it is dependent on the preceding verse, yet their connection to one another is not known. And why in verse 10 does it say "her people and her birth," while here it says "her birth and her people"? "[Esther] had not told" — All this did not help; still Esther did not tell her birth and her people. Now at first [in verse 10] it put "her people" before "her birth," because there the object was to know who she was, and the manner is to ask first about one's people and afterward about one's birth [family]; but here the object was in order to do good for the members of her people, and so they asked first about her birth, for they are the first to receive that good, and afterward about her people, that they too would be treated well for her sake. And this recounts her righteousness: that even though she had risen to greatness, she obeyed the words of Mordecai just as when she was under his authority in the time of her upbringing.

"As when she was brought up with him" (verse 20) — in the Gemara (Megillah 13b), Rabbi Abba bar Lima said: this teaches that she would get up from the lap of Ahasuerus and immerse [in a mikveh], and [then] sit in the lap of Mordecai. The Tosafot (ad loc., s.v. "ve-tovelet") raised a difficulty: but does she not need three months for havchanah [to determine the paternity of a future child] (Yevamot 42a)? They answered that Esther used a mokh (an absorbent device to prevent conception). It seems that this is not necessary, for it appears that "sitting in his lap" means mere seclusion (yichud) alone. And you should not say that she thereby became forbidden to her husband — rather, she was a victim of coercion (anusah), and a woman who is coerced does not become forbidden [to her husband] (Ketubot 51b); therefore she would seclude herself with him. For it does not stand to reason that Mordecai would endanger his life [by having actual relations with her], since if it became known to the king, both he and she would be put to death; rather, its meaning is [mere] seclusion. Furthermore, it seems to me that the Sages came to teach that Esther was not the true match (bat zivug) of Ahasuerus, but [was joined to him] only by happenstance. Therefore [they said] "she would get up from the lap of Ahasuerus and sit in the lap of Mordecai" — meaning, that Mordecai was the fitting match (ben zug) for Esther. Therefore the immersion is a hint to the removal of the impurity that he cast upon her, and she [then] sat in Mordecai's lap, meaning that she had a bond to Mordecai, who is her [true] match. From this you can understand that Esther had two aspects: one, toward Ahasuerus, in that Esther was his match; but the essential, true match was Mordecai, and they hinted at this by [teaching] that Esther did not separate from Mordecai. And had Esther not had a bond to Mordecai, it would not have been fitting that the redemption should come through her, for it has already been explained above that Esther is fit [to bring the redemption] only when Mordecai is [reckoned] as the match of Esther, and it was through the two of them together that this redemption came about. Understand these matters very well.

To assault. To give him poison to drink. — Notes: (20) Ibid. 13b. According to Targum they planned to poison Esther and to murder Achashveirosh with a sword.

"of those who kept the door" (mi-shomrei ha-saf) — in the inner court. And Scripture does not mention why they became angry, nor how Mordecai learned of the matter. And some say that he was of the Sanhedrin and knew seventy languages, and this is the meaning of "Mordecai Bilshan" (Ezra 2:2; Nehemiah 7:7) — and "Bilshan" means nothing other than [a description of] one person [i.e., Mordecai himself].

"In those days... [Bigthan and Teresh] were wroth"... "and it became known" — it would have sufficed to say this. Why does the verse first say, "and Mordecai sat..."? Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said that the king had stationed Mordecai in their place, and therefore Bigthan and Teresh were wroth, etc. Furthermore, it is possible that the verse comes to teach the Children of Israel the greatness of His providence, may He be blessed, in doing good for us. For behold, through the preparation that Haman made so that Israel would partake of Ahasuerus's feast — whereby Israel became liable, Heaven forbid, to annihilation, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, agreed in Midrash Chazit — he was destined to oppress Israel, as indeed he did afterward. And in order for it to be within his power to do so, he needed to become very great. Or, by the reasoning of our Rabbis, of blessed memory: in order to magnify his downfall, he was first raised up, so that people should not say, "he was a mere golyar [a lowly vagabond]." Now, what did He, may He be blessed, do? Before they raised him to greatness, He prepared his downfall by means of two things: first, to raise in rank his adversaries, namely Mordecai and Esther; second, to prepare the gallows for him from then on — so that afterward his greatness would come about properly, in order that he fall from a great height, for it was precisely for this that he was raised up so high. And this is it: first, He, may He be blessed, acted according to all His wonders, for it was through that very feast which caused Israel to sin that he himself prepared for himself the path to receive his due. For it was there that he advised killing Vashti, so that through this Esther would reign in her stead, in order to bring him down to the ground. By means of a feast he arranged Israel's downfall, and she would arrange [a feast] to bring about his downfall, as will be explained below, with Hashem's help. And after He, may He be blessed, made Esther queen, and also raised up Mordecai so that he sat in the king's gate — behold, He had already raised up those who would bring about Haman's downfall and his adversaries. Now it was necessary to prepare the gallows for him. What did He, may He be blessed, do? He made servants angry at their master, so that Mordecai would report it and it would be written in the book of records — so that through this Harbonah would come and say, "Behold, the gallows that Haman made for Mordecai, who spoke good on behalf of the king, is standing in Haman's house." Also, according to our Rabbis, of blessed memory, who said that the matter of Bigthan and Teresh came about by Haman's own counsel, and that therefore the king said, "Hang him on it" — it turns out that the matter of Bigthan and Teresh brought about the hanging of Haman. After these two matters, the king promoted Haman — after his downfall had already been prepared. And this is [the meaning of] "In those days, and Mordecai sat..." — that is to say, in those days when Esther had already become queen, Mordecai too — he too — sat in the king's gate. And this is [the point of] the extra vav ["and"] in "ve-Mordechai." "[Bigthan and Teresh] were wroth," etc., "and it was written in the book of the chronicles," etc. — for through this the gallows was prepared. "After these things... [the king] promoted [Haman]" — these things being the raising up of his adversaries and the preparation [of the gallows] — so that he would be fattened only after the knife had already been sharpened. Or, [the point is] something close to this: that the verse comes to give the reason for Mordecai's greatness — that Hashem raised him up and seated him at the king's gate — even though he was fleeing from prominence. For even though prominence pursued him regardless, it was not at the gate of idolaters [that he wished to be found], for on the contrary, it would have been better for him not to become known, etc. And the text says — after having stated above, "And when the maidens were gathered together..." etc. — "and Mordecai sat..." etc. — now it says: know now why He, may He be blessed, stationed him at the king's gate, in a position of rank, on account of what would come about through Haman by means of this. For when Haman was leading them [the maidens] to the feast of Ahasuerus, Mordecai cried out to them not to go. And so it was that, in those days — because Mordecai was sitting at the king's gate — it came about that "[Bigthan and Teresh] were wroth," etc., "and the matter became known to Mordecai," etc., and this was the cause of Haman's downfall, and afterward "[the king] promoted [Haman]," etc., as stated. And it says "was wroth" [in the singular], and does not say "were wroth," regarding Bigthan and Teresh. I think this is what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, resolved, in saying that one of them said to the other, "From the day this one came, we have not seen sleep with our eyes; come, let us put poison in the bowl," etc. He said to him, "But are my watch and your watch not alike?" And Rashi explains: "You are appointed over one task, and I am appointed over a different task," etc. Behold, the one was the instigator, and the other pushed him back by saying, "my watch is not [the same as yours]," etc. — this teaches that it was the one who was wroth to do the evil, and he drew the second one after him by saying, "I will keep my watch and your watch also." And with this, the singular wording "was wroth" is resolved, for it was he who was wroth, only that he drew Teresh along with him. And this is what is meant by the phrase "of those who kept the door" — for the point they had in common was that both of them were keepers of the door, though in the keeping of the door their tasks were divided. Or, alternatively, "those who kept the door" refers back to Teresh alone, but not to Bigthan, for their watches were not the same.

The Questions: Why does it mention here a second time that Mordecai sat in the king's gate, when it had already mentioned this above? "In those days" — Before [the text] comes to the recounting of the trouble that befell Israel, it puts the remedy before the wound, to teach that the wound was not meant to strike but to heal — like one performing bloodletting, who first prepares the things necessary to calm the flow of the blood, to stop it, and to restore the patient's spirit after the bloodletting. And so it says, "All the disease that I placed upon Egypt I will not place upon you, for I am Hashem your healer" (Exodus 15:26) — meaning, I will not place the disease upon you in the way that I placed it upon Egypt, where the primary intent was to strike the wicked; rather, I will place the disease upon you from the aspect that I am Hashem your healer, and from this aspect the remedy precedes the wound, for that is the primary intent. Therefore, after it had first recounted the first preparation — that Hashem had arranged the timing to heal the breach of His people by providing for them a sister in the king's house, and setting Esther wearing the royal crown — it now recounts the second preparation: that He arranged for Mordecai merit and kindness in the king's house, in that he saved the king's life from death. And it placed before this account the fact that Mordecai sat in the king's gate, for two purposes: first, that this aroused the jealousy of the guardians of the threshold, who were angered that Mordecai sat in greatness and honor while they stood on their feet to guard the threshold in the manner of guards. Second, that for this very reason Hashem brought it about that Mordecai should sit in the king's gate, so that the wrath of the chamberlains would become known to him — in such a way that Mordecai's sitting there was the cause of Israel's trouble, since through this Haman was provoked against him, and it itself was the cause of their redemption. And this is the first miracle that Hashem performed: that Mordecai should be found there, and it was the cause for the healing of the future wound. (The second miracle) that Bigthan and Teresh, who were the guardians of the threshold, grew wrathful — for this guard duty they choose men tested and proven to be lovers of the king — yet Hashem brought it about that they grew wrathful over nothing; for since they were chamberlains, what reason did they have to be jealous of Mordecai's greatness? Third: the substance of the deed itself — that they sought to lay a hand on so great a king; for when it happens that officers dare to rebel against their king, it is because they think to make one of themselves king, but it is not [expected] that two chamberlains, who know that it means their own lives, would do this.

"Bigthan and Teresh were wroth, etc." (verse 21). In the Talmud, Megillah (13b), Rabbi Yochanan said: the Holy One, blessed be He, made masters angry at their servants in order to accomplish the will of a righteous man, and made servants angry at their masters in order to accomplish the will of a righteous man. Masters against servants — as it is written (Genesis 40:2), "And Pharaoh was wroth against his two officers," in order to accomplish the will of a righteous man, and who is he? Joseph, as it is written (ibid. 41:12), "And there was with us a Hebrew youth, a servant." Servants against their masters — as it is written, "Bigthan and Teresh, two of the king's chamberlains, who kept the door, were wroth," in order to accomplish the will of a righteous man, and who is he? Mordecai, as it is written (below, verse 22), "And the thing became known to Mordecai." (End of the Talmudic passage.) Explanation: even though wrath (ketzef) is the opposite of will (ratzon), nevertheless, how great is the righteous man — that Hashem, may He be blessed, brought forth from the wrath — by which He made servants angry at their masters and masters angry at their servants — the accomplishment of the will of the righteous man. Thus the will emerges from the wrath, which is the opposite of the wrath, and this thing shows how great is the power of the righteous man. And there is a further explanation of this: wrath is a form of destruction, for when a person is in a state of wrath, the Sages said (Nedarim 22a) that Gehinnom rules over a person when he is in a state of wrath. And there are many things that the Sages said about wrath, as is explained in its place. Now Hashem, may He be blessed, made servants angry at their masters, and even though this is utter destruction, nevertheless Hashem, may He be blessed, brought about this thing — He caused the wrath, which is utter destruction and desolation, in order to accomplish the will of the righteous man. And this explanation is proven from the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 6:13), which states: "Come, behold the works of Hashem, who has wrought desolations in the earth" (Psalms 46:9) — He made servants angry at their masters, etc. This shows you that it means to say that even though wrath is desolation and destruction, all the more so is it so to make a master angry at his own servant, since the servant belongs to him, and likewise a servant angry against the one who is master over him. "Bigthan and Teresh were wroth, etc." — in the Talmud (Megillah 13b) it explains what this wrath was. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said: Bigthan and Teresh were Tarsians, and they would speak in the Tarsian language: "From the day this one came we have seen no sleep in our eyes; let us go and put venom of a drug into the water basin, so that he will die." And they did not know that Mordecai was one of those who sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, and that he knew seventy languages, etc. They were precise in explaining what is written, "in those days" — for it should only have needed to write, "And Bigthan and Teresh were wroth, etc." Rather, the verse comes to say that the wrath occurred in those days when Esther was married to Ahasuerus, just as they said, "From the day this one came we have seen no sleep in our eyes." And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 6:13): after those two years had passed, and he had installed Mordecai [at the gate]. And according to this Midrash as well, it says "in those days" — meaning when Mordecai sat at the king's gate, for the king had seated him in the place of Bigthan and Teresh; therefore Bigthan and Teresh were wroth, etc. Now, one must ask: why did Mordecai do this — save the wicked one? For had they given him the deadly drug, he would have saved Esther. And in the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 39:12, and Yalkut Shimoni here, 1053): "And the thing became known to Mordecai" — this one is circumcised and that one is uncircumcised, and he has compassion on him?! [A wonder!] Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemiah — Rabbi Yehuda says: "From the elders I gain understanding" (Psalms 119:100) — Jacob blessed Pharaoh (Genesis 47:7); Joseph did not reveal to him his dream; Daniel did not reveal it to Nebuchadnezzar. So too I will tell it to Queen Esther. Another explanation: why did Mordecai say it should be told to the king — is it not written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 7:2), "You shall not make a covenant with them"? Rather, Mordecai said: it is better that this one live, [for] he is the one who gave me permission to build the Temple. Another explanation: it is better [that this one live], since I know him, so that if any matter should arise for Israel, I speak to him and he acts on it. Another explanation: so that people should not say, all the days that he was married to a gentile woman he was protected, but now that he married a daughter of Israel, he died. Another explanation: so that people should not say, all the days that gentiles were guarding him he was protected, but now that Mordecai was guarding him, he was killed. Therefore it says, "And he told it to Queen Esther." And why did she tell it to the king in Mordecai's name? She said: I know that he is righteous, and even though he was not requesting the matter from the Holy One, blessed be He, He accomplishes it anyway — therefore it says (below, verse 23), "And the matter was investigated and found." And some say: Bigthan and Teresh heard that it had been told to the king, and they removed the snake from the pitcher, and the Holy One, blessed be He, created a snake within the pitcher for Mordecai's sake. Therefore it says, "And the matter was investigated and found" — one only says "and found" of something that was lost and then found, similar to what is stated (Leviticus 5:22), "or has found a lost item." And the explanation of this Midrash is: this is why Mordecai warned him — even though logically one might have thought he should not have had compassion on him, so that Esther might be freed from under his power — nevertheless, [he warned him] because Hashem, may He be blessed, is the Guardian of the world, and He established the king to safeguard the world; and therefore they said (Avot 3:2), "Pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear of it, a man would swallow his fellow alive." All the more so, then, should one inform concerning him if someone wishes to kill him. But according to the "another explanation," this was difficult for him: that this matter is not comparable to Jacob, Joseph, and Daniel. For Jacob was before Pharaoh (Genesis 47:7), and it is fitting to do this for a king — to bless him — when one is in his presence. Likewise Pharaoh asked Joseph about his dream (Genesis 41:15), and likewise Nebuchadnezzar asked Daniel (Daniel 2:26). But in this case, Ahasuerus did not ask Mordecai anything about this matter — and that constitutes making a covenant [with a gentile, which is forbidden]. Therefore it says (Yalkut Shimoni here, 1053) that the reason is that he gave him permission to build the Temple. And it further explains (ibid.) that it is because he knows him, and this is good for Israel. And it further explains (ibid.) that it was so people should not say that all the while he was married to a gentile woman he was protected, etc. And even though people did not know that Esther was a daughter of Israel, he feared lest it become known to them that she was a daughter of Israel, and they would then say this. And one must ask: why did Mordecai not say it himself? One may answer: this was better, for now Ahasuerus felt indebted to both Mordecai and Esther, since she was the one who told the matter to Ahasuerus. Furthermore, Mordecai thought that perhaps the king would not believe him, and would think that I am doing this for my own benefit. But since he told the matter only to Esther, Ahasuerus would not say that Mordecai did this so that the king would feel indebted to him for it and would grant him some favor because of it — for Ahasuerus could say that Mordecai did not know that Esther would say it in Mordecai's name, since Ahasuerus had never stipulated that a matter must be stated in the name of the one who said it.

The matter was apprehended by Mordechai. For they were discussing their affairs before him in the Tarsian language, and they did not know that Mordechai was familiar with seventy languages, for he was one of those [Sanhedrin] who sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone [which housed the Great Sanhedrin]. — Notes: (21) Ibid. Each member of Sanhedrin was familiar with all seventy languages in order to understand and hear direct testimony without the means of a translator.

This teaches us a fine and delightful ethical lesson: a person should not say, "Let each person seek his own peace and welfare, and Hashem will seek the peace of all" — for the truth is the opposite. As long as a person directs his attention to benefiting himself and not his fellow, and his fellow likewise [does the same], then the Holy One, blessed be He, benefits neither of them. On the contrary, one who prays for his fellow — even when he himself needs that very thing — is answered first, as Scripture says, "And Hashem restored the captivity of Job when he prayed for his friends" (Job 42:10). And if this were not so, where would be the commandment, "And you shall love your fellow as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18), which encompasses the whole Torah? He states that Mordecai and Esther together, both of them, held fast to this good trait — that each one looked to benefit the other — and Hashem benefited them both. This is [the meaning of] "and the thing became known to Mordecai": had it been anyone else, he would have told the king so that the king would benefit him; but he wanted only to benefit Esther. Hence, "he told it to Esther the queen" — to benefit her, so that she would find favor in the eyes of the king by telling it herself. And when Esther perceived Mordecai's kindness — that he desired her benefit more than benefiting himself — she too performed an act of kindness: "and Esther told the king in Mordecai's name," so that the king would benefit him, as indeed happened in the end, for through this she elevated Mordecai. Now it is fitting to consider: why was it that King Ahasuerus — whose way it was to hold gratitude and to reward those who benefited him, this being, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, one of the good qualities found in him — why then, when Esther told him in Mordecai's name, did he not confer honor and greatness upon him for it, until [later] "his sleep fled from him" (Esther 6:1), and he said to bring the book of records, etc., "and it was found written that Mordecai had told," etc., and he asked, as if in astonishment, "What honor and greatness has been done for Mordecai?" — for surely it would have been better to hasten the greatness and honor at the time? Now the Targum was hard-pressed to explain the verse "and Esther told the king in Mordecai's name," [maintaining] that the words "in Mordecai's name" refer not to Esther's telling but to the writing [in the records]. And this is the language of the Targum: "And Esther told the king, and it was written in Mordecai's name." But it is possible [to explain] that she said [to herself]: Woe is me if I tell Mordecai to inform the king himself, for perhaps, when it is investigated, it will not be found [true], and they will regard Mordecai as a slanderer, and I will be responsible for [the loss of] his head before the king. And all the more so, according to our Rabbis of blessed memory, who said that had Gabriel not come and cast a snake into the water, they [Bigthan and Teresh] would have concealed the matter, and it would have been found false. Yet woe is me if I do not tell it, for if it is found to be as he said, I will have withheld good from its rightful owner. Therefore her own conscience (lit. "her kidneys") counseled her that Mordecai should not go and tell the king himself, but rather that Esther alone tell it in Mordecai's name. For she reasoned: if it is found to be as he said, then when the king's scribes come to record it in the book, they will come to me to ask how the matter became known to me, in order to write the truth of the matter, and I will tell them what Mordecai told [me]; and through this it will become known to the king, and it will go well with him [Mordecai]. And if it is not found so, I will say that Mordecai heard it only by hearsay, and so he will not be blamed, and that this is why he told it to me and did not go to the king himself. Now the king perceived two things. First, that Mordecai had not come to tell the king himself; he said in his heart: he did not do this for my sake, since he did not come to me but only to Esther — this shows that he is not concerned for my welfare, and therefore he did not disclose it to me directly but told it [only] to Esther. Were it not for Esther having had compassion on me, I would have died, for she of her own accord was moved in spirit to do good for me. Second, that the matter had not become known to him in its essential form, for this reason no [formal] "telling" was mentioned [in the record], but merely an offhand statement, in Mordecai's name. Therefore, when the matter was investigated and found [true], nothing was done for him except that it was recorded, as we have said, for when the king's scribes write a matter, they inquire and investigate what the event was and how it occurred; and then, without doubt, the writing recorded what was found written: "that Mordecai had told concerning Bigthana and Teresh," etc., "who had sought to lay hands on the king" — and this was because the entire correction [Esther made] consisted in this one thing: that she did not mention her own name, but only that Mordecai alone had told it. And regarding the second [correction] — to show that it was not because he [Mordecai] was failing to act for the king's benefit that he did not tell the king himself — what did she do? She reversed the order. She did not have it written, "Bigthan and Teresh sought to lay hands on King Ahasuerus, and Mordecai told [it]," but rather the reverse, from the later matter to the earlier one: "that Mordecai had told... that [they] had sought..." This is because, had the matter been written in its [chronological] sequence, it would have appeared merely as a recounting of the order of events, not that Mordecai had told it in order to save the king's life from death. But as it now stands, it shows that his whole concern and desire in telling it was that he had compassion for the king. This is [the meaning of] "that Mordecai had told," etc. — that is, what Mordecai told concerned those who had sought to lay hands on King Ahasuerus, so that the wicked would not lay their hands upon the king. And therefore, when it was found written [in this way], the king resolved to say, "What honor and greatness has been done," etc. However, at the time the matter was [first] written, he had it in his heart that no reward was due to Mordecai, as we have written, for he did not pay attention to what was being written, even though it was written in the Book of the Chronicles right before the king himself; and on the contrary, he elevated Haman, his adversary, over the matter — as we shall explain, with Hashem's help.

The third miracle: that the matter became known to Mordecai, through the providence of Hashem who reveals hidden things. The fourth: that although Mordecai had not told Esther to say this in his name, she obeyed his voice in every matter, as it had said before, "and Esther did the commandment of Mordecai" — yet here she departed from his words and told the king in Mordecai's name.

"And it was told (vayugad) to Esther" and afterward "and Esther said (vatomer), etc." — it is not written using the same term for both, either both "vayugad" or both "vayomer." For the one who tells (the maggid) does not do anything; he only relates what he saw, and regarding this it is fitting to say "vayugad le-Esther" [it was told to Esther]. But concerning Esther it is written "vatomer Esther la-melekh be-shem Mordekhai" [Esther said to the king in Mordecai's name], and about this matter the term "telling" (haggadah) does not apply, for a telling is when one relates to someone the event that happened, whereas "saying" (vayomer) is used when one speaks in order to set a matter right. For Esther came to warn Ahasuerus that he should be on his guard, and therefore it is written "vatomer." One can also say that this is why our Sages, of blessed memory, expounded (Megillah 15a): "Whoever says something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world." For if not for this reason, why did the verse change its language to write "vatomer" and not write "vatagged"? Rather, it is to teach that because she said this matter in Mordecai's name, Esther brought redemption to the world. And this matter does not depend on the telling, for every telling has a recipient — the one to whom it was told — and certainly regarding the matter of "saying something in the name of the one who said it," the merit does not depend on what was told to another; rather, it depends on this: that one says the matter in the name of the one who said it, and it does not depend at all on the recipient. Therefore it is written "vatomer la-melekh be-shem Mordekhai" [she said to the king in Mordecai's name]. But it appears that they expounded "Whoever says something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world" as follows: it is written (below 3:1) "After these things, the king promoted Haman, etc." — the explanation is that everywhere the phrase "after these things" is connected to what precedes it. And why is it connected? Because the Blessed One, before He sends a blow upon Israel, sends them the remedy beforehand. And here, after He had established the redeemer for them — namely Esther — the blow came upon Israel. For Esther was already prepared for the redemption because she said the matter in the name of the one who said it, and this is the main preparation by which Esther merited the redemption. And let this matter not be light in your eyes — that on account of this she should merit the redemption, particularly this redemption. For she is indeed fitting for this merit of "one who says something in the name of the one who said it," because this redemption in particular was different from all other redemptions. For this redemption occurred while Israel was in the hiding of the Face (hester panim) within the exile, unlike other redemptions, where the Blessed Holy One came to redeem them out of trouble. But here, even though the Blessed Holy One brought about this redemption, nevertheless Israel remained in their exile. For the calamity of Haman was harder, in that it was a trouble within the troubles of the exile, as we have said above. That is why they said, at the end of tractate Chullin (139b): "Where is Esther [alluded to] in the Torah? As it is said (Deuteronomy 31:18), 'And I will surely hide (haster astir) My face, etc.'" Now what does Esther have to do with this more than the other exiles? Rather, the meaning is that this matter is a complete hiding of the Face, which was the nature of Haman's deed within their exile. And do not raise the difficulty: were there not several other things, such as the generation of religious persecution (dor shel shemad), which was likewise within their exile — why does "And I will surely hide My face" apply more to the deed of Haman than to those? This is not difficult at all, for the generation of the persecution was part of the very body of the exile itself, which came from the fourth kingdom; and just as the exile came from the fourth kingdom, so too the calamity of the persecution came from it, and it is not a case of trouble within trouble — rather, it is all one single trouble. But the deed of Haman, which occurred while they were in the exile of Persia and Media — that being the kingdom under which Israel was already subjugated — and the calamity came upon them from Haman, who is another [agent], as we explained above; this is certainly a hiding of the Face when they are under Haman within a hiding of the Face when they are under Ahasuerus, and this is counted as a concealment within a concealment. And therefore she is called "Esther," because Israel was in a complete hiding of the Face. And for this reason you will not find in this redemption what you find in the other redemptions. For even the miracle of Chanukah was revealed in the Chanukah lights, whereas this redemption had no revealed miracle in it. Rather, the matter is that this entire redemption occurred in a complete hiding of the Face, and nevertheless they were redeemed. Excluding Chanukah — there Israel was on their own land, and the Temple stood upon its foundation, and therefore they had a revealed miracle. And for this reason you will not find His blessed Name in this Scroll — and this matter is a great question, for the redemption was exceedingly great, yet you do not find His blessed Name; even a substitute epithet for the Name is not mentioned in the Scroll. Rather, all this was because they were in a hiding of the Face from the Blessed Holy One; even though He was redeeming them, they were still in a hiding of the Face, and therefore the Name is not mentioned in the Scroll. And do not say that because of this, this redemption is lesser; on the contrary — this matter shows that it is far greater, to redeem them even while it was in a hiding of the Face. Now, every redemption that the Blessed Holy One brought upon Israel was so that they would know the goodness that the Blessed Holy One does for Israel. And therefore, regarding the redemption from Egypt, Scripture always mentions this matter (Exodus 10:2): "And that you may relate in the ears of your son and your son's son what I have wrought upon Egypt," and so likewise everywhere else. And all this is because those were revealed and publicized miracles, and everyone knew that this came from the Blessed Holy One. But this redemption — who proves that it all came from the Blessed Holy One? And had Esther said, 'See the good that I have done for you, for I have saved you from the calamity,' then the kindnesses of Hashem would not have become known, and thus the redemption would have been brought in vain, and it would not have been the Blessed Holy One who was seen as bringing the redemption. For every redemption is given so that it be known that it was He, blessed be He, who redeemed them — and this redemption, who makes it known? But since Esther was prepared to attribute the matter to the one who did it — for she told the matter to the king in Mordecai's name, even though it concerned what a mere human being had done, and she did not say to Ahasuerus, "I have done this good for you," so that the king would feel gratitude toward her, but rather attributed it to Mordecai — then how much more so would she attribute the redemption to the One from whom the redemption truly came. For she knew and recognized this matter, since she possessed great wisdom, recognizing the miracles that were done for her. And therefore they said, "Whoever says something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world" — meaning, one who says something in the name of the one who said it is fitting that the redemption come by his hand. For if one says something in the name of the one who said it, thereby attributing the matter to the one from whom it came, all the more so will he attribute the redemption to the One from whom it truly came, and not attribute it to himself, saying, "I did this, my own power and the strength of my hand accomplished it." And furthermore, we have explained elsewhere — and this is the main point — the following: when there is a certain thing that belongs to Reuben, but it is in Simeon's possession, this thing is comparable to something that is under the hand of another. And when one says something in the name of the one who said it, this person takes the thing out from under his own hand and returns it to the one to whom it rightfully belongs and from whom it came; and this is considered like a redemption for the utterance, in that he takes out the matter that is in his hand and returns it to the one from whom it came. Therefore this too brings redemption to the world — to take one thing out from under the hand of another, so that it be under the Blessed Holy One, from whom all things come, and from whom all things exist. Therefore, one who says something in the name of the one who said it — since he takes the utterance that was under his hand and attributes it to the one who said it and from whom it came — this is a redemption for the utterance, and therefore he merits that the redemption come by his hand. This explanation is clear to one who understands. And elsewhere we have elaborated further, and explained it there in its place. Therefore, after it is written that Esther deserved the redemption — for she said the matter in the name of the one who said it — it is written afterward (below 3:1), "After these things, King Ahasuerus promoted Haman."

This was inscribed in the book of archives. The favor that Mordechai did for the king. — Notes: (22) This was recorded in the book of archives of Media and Persia, and referred to in 10:2 below.

"and they were hanged" (va-yitlu) — [meaning] each one of the two [was hanged], like "va-yikaver be-arei Gilad" (and he was buried in the cities of Gilead) (Judges 12:7) [a singular verb used for a plural subject].

The Questions: "Before the king" is superfluous. [The fifth miracle]: "And when inquisition was made of the matter, and it was found [to be so]" — meaning, the matter itself was found: that the actual poison with which they had wished to kill him was found — which is something far from likely, for they had certainly hidden that poison in hiding places. [The sixth miracle]: "And it was written" — it was through Hashem's providence that the king did not pay him his reward immediately, but rather it was written in a book as a remembrance, so that this would stand as a salvation for Mordecai on the day of reckoning. And there was in this a specific providence, that it was not written in the general book of Chronicles, which is always in the possession of the viceroy — for then Haman would certainly have erased it from there — but rather it was written in the book of chronicles particular to the king, which Haman did not have access to. And also, that it was written "before the king" means in his presence, for otherwise it would have been easy for the scribe to falsify it and omit something from it.

"And they hanged both of them on a tree" (verse 23) — He wrote "on a tree," which was not necessary [to state]. For this too is an instance of the remedy prepared before the affliction: just as these two who were prominent in the eyes of King Ahasuerus were hanged on a tree, so too Haman was hanged on a tree (below, 7:10). And for Haman it was specifically ordained to be hanged on a tree, as will be explained; and therefore it is written "and they hanged [them] on the tree." And so it is stated in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:3): "He who showed us the hanging of these, so may He show us the hanging of Haman." "And it was written in the book of the chronicles before the king" — because the king knew that they were enemies of Mordechai, and he was concerned that perhaps it would not be written as it ought to be. Therefore it was written "before the king," so that then the scribe would not deviate from what he was told to write.