Esther · Chapter 3

After these events. That this remedy was created as a salvation for Yisroel. King [Achashveirosh] conferred eminence on Haman. For the Holy One Blessed Is He, creates a remedy for Yisroel’s blow before He brings the blow upon them. — Notes: (1) Maseches Megillah 13b.

"after" (achar) — after five years; and some say that this Haman is [the same as] Memuchan. "above all the princes" — the meaning is above all the seats of the princes, for every prince had his own seat in the royal house.

Behold, we wrote above how He, may He be blessed, arranged things so that Haman's rise would come after the rise of Mordecai and Esther, and after the gallows had been prepared for Haman through the matter of Bigthan and Teresh, as is written concerning the verse "In those days, and Mordecai... etc." However, according to the plain sense of the verses, it is fitting to pay attention to what came into the mind of King Ahasuerus to promote Haman on this day, of all days. But it was as we wrote: that the king did not attribute the good deed of the reporting of the plot of Bigthan and Teresh to Mordecai, but rather to Queen Esther. Therefore the king said in his heart: What extra rank shall I raise for Esther, since there is nothing higher than her being queen? Rather, I will elevate in rank the one who brought about her being queen, who caused that through her my life was saved. And he said in his heart: Behold, Haman was of lesser rank than the seven princes of Persia and Media who sat first in the kingdom; and the counsel of those greater than him was not to put Vashti to death, only the counsel of Memuchan alone was. And after I have seen that his counsel bore fruit and my life was saved on his account, through the one who became queen by his counsel in place of Vashti, therefore it is good that I place his throne above them all, and he shall be greater than the seven of them. And this is [the meaning of] "After these things" — that after the matter would be sought out and found, and the king would be saved through Esther, "the king promoted Haman above all the princes who were with him" — these being the seven who saw the king's face. And this is why it says "who were with him" and does not say "above all the king's princes" — because his counsel had been better than theirs. And since it is not according to the law of the statutes of kingdoms to raise a man above many princes who had all previously been above him, all at once, without gradation — and all the more so lest the hearts of all the rest turn bitter against the king — therefore they promoted him gradually, in three stages. First, "King Ahasuerus promoted Haman" — that he promoted him beyond what he had been at first. And afterward, a second stage: "and advanced him" beyond the greatness to which he had already promoted him. And a third time: "and set his seat above all the princes who were with him." And he was precise in saying "and set his seat above all the princes" and did not say "above all the thrones of the princes." This is to say: behold, the way of a king is to arrange thrones for princes — the greatest of them all in front, and the second throne below it, and so too the third and the fourth in this manner; but they are all in one row, one beside the other, and the rank is discernible only in that this one is first and that one second. But regarding Haman it says that his rank was not merely that his throne was at the head of the row, beside the throne of the one second to him in rank — so that he too, in his sitting upon his throne, would be beside his fellow — rather, the throne on which he sat, the throne itself, was not only above the throne of the one second to him, but also above the princes themselves; for he set his throne in a high place, so that the throne itself was above all the princes themselves as they sat upon their thrones.

The Questions: Why did he promote Haman so greatly, and why specifically "after these things"? And what is the meaning of the doubling, "promoted" and "advanced him"? "After these things" — the commentators explained that after it had been forgotten by Ahasuerus that Esther had reported this in Mordecai's name, and this king was very eager, in particular, to repay his benefactors, yet found nothing with which to repay Esther for having saved his life from the pit, he thought that the only fitting thing for her would be to do good to the officials who had advised him to take Esther — for the first of his chamberlains was Mehuman, and he had advised him to seek young virgins for himself, and through this the king married Esther — and so he raised him to the heights of the clouds. And also, since it had been forgotten by him who it was that had revealed the matter of Bigthan and Teresh, it was easy for Haman, whose hour was successful for him, to persuade the king's heart that he was the one who had reported the matter, and so he raised him to greatness. In this way Haman clothed himself in a garment (tallit) that was not his own, and this honor in truth was due to Mordecai; but it was Hashem who brought it about that it should fall, for the time being, upon the head of the wicked one, until the time came to restore the crown to its rightful owner. "Promoted him and advanced him" — it is among the customs of kings not to promote a commoner suddenly from the lowest rank to the highest rank, but rather to raise him rank by rank, as I explained specifically in Parashat Mikketz regarding Pharaoh's promotion of Joseph. So too Joseph told his brothers (Genesis 45:8), "and he made me a father to Pharaoh," and afterward, "and lord of all his house," and afterward, "and ruler over all the land of Egypt." So too Ahasuerus did: first, "he promoted him" — he raised him to be a minister; and afterward, "and advanced him," rank by rank, until he raised him so that he set his seat above all the ministers who were with him, at the highest rank, making him head over them all.

"After these things..." (Esther 3:1). In the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:1-2): this is what Scripture says (Psalms 37:20), "For the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of Hashem shall be as the glory of the pastures" — [meaning] they are not fattened for their own good, but for the slaughter. So too the wicked Haman — he was made great only for his own downfall. A parable: of a man who had a foal, a donkey, and a pig. He would feed the pig without measure, but the donkey and the foal by measure. The foal said to the donkey, "What is this fool doing? We, who do the work of the master of the house, he gives us by measure, while to the pig, which does nothing, he gives without measure!" [The donkey] said to her, "The time will come and you will see its downfall — for they do not feed it more for its honor, but for its harm." As soon as the Kalends [festival] came, they immediately took the pig and slaughtered it. They then began giving barley to the donkey's daughter [the foal], and she would bite it and not eat. Her mother said to her, "My daughter, it is not the food that causes [this], but the idleness that causes it." So too, since it is written (here), "and set his seat above all the officials who were with him," therefore (below, 7:10), "and they hanged Haman." Another interpretation: "After these things" — Rabbi Levi said: this is what Scripture says (Psalms 92:8), "When the wicked sprout like grass and all the workers of iniquity blossom" — what is written at the end of the verse? "It is so that they may be destroyed forever." Haman was made great only for his own harm. And why did he raise him up? A parable of a galyar who cursed the king's son. The king said, "If I kill him now, everyone will just say, 'A galyar was killed.'" He made him a hegemon [governor], and afterward killed him. So too the Holy One, blessed be He, said: had Haman been killed when he advised Ahasuerus to stop the building of the Temple, no one would have known of it. Rather, let him become great, and afterward be hanged. Therefore, "he set his seat above all the officials," and afterward, "they hanged Haman." Thus the enemies of the Holy One, blessed be He, become great only for their downfall, as it is written (Job 12:23), "He magnifies nations, and destroys them." And the explanation of this Midrash is: that according to the proper order that Hashem, may He be blessed, desires, the righteous one should swallow up the wicked one and remove him completely. And this [happens] when the wicked one is at the very peak of his perfection — that is, when the wicked one has reached the very peak of his perfection in wealth and greatness, for it is then fitting that he be swallowed up by the righteous one. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, gives wealth and also greatness to the wicked one, for this is the goal and perfection of the wicked one; and when He has given the wicked one this, and he has reached his goal and his perfection, then he is swallowed up by the righteous one — for the righteous one is the removal of the wicked one at the peak of his perfection in greatness and wealth. But so long as he has not reached his goal, which is his end, it is not given that he be swallowed up by the righteous one. And in any case, even if the wicked one has reached that which is the peak of perfection — namely the greatness and the wealth and similar things that are the peak of his success — his continued existence was only for the sake that Hashem, may He be blessed, had given to the righteous one [the power] to swallow up the wicked one and remove him; therefore the wicked one is swallowed up by the righteous one. These matters are words of great wisdom, when you understand these matters in their truth. And although we have also explained these matters somewhat above in another way, this [explanation] appears to me to be true and correct, as you will understand. Now, regarding what Rabbi Levi said, one may raise a difficulty: if so, [Hashem] should have made Haman great and brought death upon him before he plotted to destroy Israel, since according to the Midrash his principal sin was that he had stopped the building of the [Temple] House. And the explanation of the Midrash is: that it was on account of this [sin] that Hashem, may He be blessed, made Haman great, and would afterward destroy him — for the wicked Haman certainly deserved to be destroyed, because this wicked man had given counsel to stop the building of the Holy Temple. But this counsel amounted only to [the fact] that the Temple would not [yet] exist — and even before this it also had not existed, and if it were not built now it would be built afterward; therefore it was not fitting to take so great an action against him [for that alone]. Therefore Hashem, may He be blessed, said: behold, this wicked man, who sought more and more against Israel, to destroy them completely — for this reason Haman was made great, to the point that he came to desire to destroy all of Israel. And once he was great, and in accordance with his greatness he wished to destroy Israel by his great power, therefore the punishment came upon him with [corresponding] force, until he was hanged together with his ten sons at one time. And one may further say, regarding what was said, that "he shall become great and afterward be hanged" — the meaning is that if he had not first become great, it would not be evident that he was hanged because Hashem, may He be blessed, brought this upon him for his sin; rather, [it would seem] that he was simply predisposed of himself to this calamity. But when his great success and dominion in the world becomes visible to the world, they will not say that he was predisposed of himself to this, but rather that the hand of Hashem did this — and therefore they made him great first. And the first difficulty may also be resolved thus: that they did not make him great immediately upon his stopping the building of the Temple, because the fact that he had stopped the building of the Temple was not known to everyone, and therefore [people] would not have understood why he was hanged. But this other matter — that he wished to destroy Israel — his evil became known in the world to everyone; and when he was punished for his evil, it became known to everyone that Hashem had wrought all of this. "After these things" — its meaning according to the plain sense appears to be: after Ahasuerus had made Esther great, [making her] queen (above, 2:17), and likewise Mordechai also [was] sitting at the king's gate (above, 2:19, 21) — and Mordechai and Esther are opposed to Haman. Now, those who are opposed to one another must be equal in greatness, for the small one is not considered an opponent of the great one, since they are not of the same standing and the same relation. Therefore Haman too was made great, just as Queen Esther, who is the opposite of Haman, was set over all the officials. And so they immediately began to provoke one another, and Haman wished to rule over Mordechai and Esther and over all the Jews, for Ahasuerus belongs to both of them, and it is impossible for opposites to stand together. And immediately Haman began and wished to destroy Mordechai, for this is the nature of opposites. So it appears [to me] to explain the plain meaning of the verse. And as for what is said, "and set his seat above all the officials" — this matter will be explained further. And in the Gemara (Megillah 13b): what is [the meaning of] "after these things"? Rava said: after the Holy One, blessed be He, had created the remedy for the wound — for the Holy One, blessed be He, does not strike Israel unless He first creates a remedy for them, as it is said (Hosea 7:1), "When I would heal Israel, then the iniquity of Ephraim is revealed." But with the nations of the world it is not so — He strikes them and afterward creates a remedy for them, as it is said (Isaiah 19:22), "And Hashem shall smite Egypt, smiting and healing" — thus far [the passage]. And the explanation of this is: that with Israel, if there were no remedy, Hashem, may He be blessed, would not strike them, for [Hashem] does not annihilate Israel, and it is impossible that the blow against them should be permanent — rather, there is [always] a remedy for them. Therefore the remedy is the cause of the blow, and if there were no remedy, there would be no blow. And since a thing that is the cause of another thing precedes the thing it causes, therefore the remedy comes first. But with the nations, the remedy is not the cause of the blow; rather, the reverse — the blow is the cause of the remedy, and the remedy follows from the blow, and therefore the blow comes first. And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1053): "After these things [the king] promoted" — there were ponderings there — [and who was pondering?] Rabbi Yehuda says: Haman pondered. He said, "If this Esther is Jewish, she is my relative, as it is said (Malachi 1:2), 'Is not Esau a brother to Jacob?' And if she is from the other nations, all nations are close to one another — it is fitting that I gain my standing (parqufi) through her." Rabbi Yehuda says: Ahasuerus pondered. He said, "Mordechai seeks to build the Holy Temple. To build it is impossible, and to turn him away is [also] impossible; rather, I will incite Haman against him, so that this one builds and that one destroys." And the Sages say: the Holy One, blessed be He, pondered: let Haman come and gather [wealth], so that "he prepares it, but the righteous shall wear it" (cf. Job 27:17), and afterward Mordechai will come and take it from him, and with it the Holy Temple will be built. And the explanation of this is: that this is why it is written "after these things" — that Haman's greatness was dependent upon what was said before it, namely, that the king had made Esther and Mordechai great. And it is known that Mordechai and Haman came forth from a single root, and therefore it is considered that the greatness that came to the one is fitting also for the other. And this is certainly so: that if greatness comes to the one, it is fitting also for the other, since they came forth from a single root. But in the end, the one takes [it] from the other — as happened here, that Haman wished to nullify Mordechai's greatness, and in the end Mordechai and Esther destroyed him. Only that at first, when the one is great, the other is also great — but in the end it is impossible for them to stand together. And this is because at first, before they reach the ultimate point of their greatness, their greatness may be attributed to what they have in common. And behold, Haman, who is of the seed of Esau, has a commonality with Mordechai and Esther, for both of them are of the seed of Jacob, and Jacob and Esau are brothers (Genesis 25:26). But in the end, when they reach the ultimate point of their greatness — when their greatness is complete — then the one is the nullification of the other. For when the greatness belongs to both, then each one has only a portion of greatness, and this is not greatness in its completeness. But when it reaches the ultimate point of its greatness, then it wants the whole. Therefore, at first, when [the king] made Esther and Mordechai great, he also made Haman great, and therefore it is written, "After these things the king made great, etc." But at the end of their greatness, the one is the nullification of the other, for greatness in its completeness is not a portion, but the whole. Therefore, when the greatness of Mordechai and Esther was with Ahasuerus, he made Haman great as well. But afterward Haman had only a portion, and therefore Haman wished to have the whole, and to nullify Mordechai — and in the end Esther and Mordechai nullified Haman. And this matter is exceedingly wondrous in wisdom: for at first, when Mordechai and Esther were receiving greatness from Ahasuerus, this was also the cause for Haman — since he too, being of the seed of Esau, the brother of Jacob, receives greatness. But when they reached the ultimate completeness of their greatness, the one became the nullification of the other — for greatness, when it is complete, is the nullification of the other, because greatness that is complete is the whole, and is not a portion. And when it belongs to two, each one has [only] a portion and not the whole; therefore each one wants to nullify the other. And the other [view] holds that Ahasuerus pondered. For since Ahasuerus made Mordechai great, this would be a cause for the Temple to be built. But Ahasuerus is wicked, and does not want this thing; therefore he also made Haman great, who is opposed to him [Mordechai], so that the one would be the nullification of the other. And the Sages say that its meaning is: since Mordechai was sitting at the king's gate, and it was fitting that the Temple be built on account of this, and in order for this to be brought into effect, the king made Haman great, so that he would gather great wealth, and Mordechai would take it all, and the Temple would be built. And specifically Haman's wealth was fitting for this, for the reason we stated above — that the wicked are more disposed to wealth, and the righteous one swallows up the wicked one and his wealth. Therefore it is written, "After these things, etc." — understand these matters very well. And it appears that there is no need to explain that Mordechai literally gathered wealth, and that from this the Temple was built. Rather, [the point is] that once the wealth becomes fitting for Mordechai, then by virtue of this preparedness — that Mordechai is fit for wealth — the Temple is built, for in any case the building of the Temple requires wealth. And through Mordechai the wealth reached Israel, in that Mordechai destroyed Haman and his offspring, who were disposed to gather wealth. For the wealth that they brought to the Temple was, as it were, Mordechai's own, since he in particular is disposed to wealth, in that he took Haman's wealth. "And advanced him, and set his seat above all the officials who were with him" — Scripture would only have needed to write, "and set his seat above the officials who were with him"; but why do I need [the words] "and advanced him," [implying] that [Ahasuerus] himself accorded him honor? This is what they said in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, here, 1053): "and advanced him" — that he made for him a platform higher than the platform of Ahasuerus himself. And behold, Ahasuerus himself accorded him honor, because he had made him into an object of idol worship, and therefore he elevated him above himself and accorded him honor. And what the Midrash says (ibid.) — to what point did he elevate him? Until "let them make a gallows fifty cubits high" (below, 5:14). And the meaning of this is: that the very fact that he elevated him above all the officials was the cause of his being hanged, as is made explicit.

Kneeled and prostrated themselves. Because he made himself as a god; therefore, “but Mordechai would neither kneel nor prostrate himself.” — Notes: (2) Esther Rabbah 7:5. Alternatively, his robes were decorated with idols. (Ibn Ezra)

"bowed down" (yichra) and "prostrated himself" (va-yishtachaveh) are well-known [terms]; and correct is what our Sages of blessed memory expounded, that a form of an image and of idolatry was on his garments or on his turban.

It is fitting to pay attention: first, it would have been fitting to say that the king commanded that they should bow down and prostrate themselves before him, and afterward to say that they did so indeed — for this is the proper order, that first there is a command and afterward it is fulfilled, and the deed should not precede [the command]. But instead it says "they were bowing down, etc." and only then gives the reason, that so the king had commanded concerning him. Furthermore, it would have been fitting for it to say that he commanded them, and not [that he commanded] concerning him. And furthermore, it says "he would not bow, etc." in the future tense, and does not say "he was not bowing and prostrating himself." But there is no doubt that for the greatest of all the king's princes, whose throne was above all the princes, it would not be beyond them to bow before him even without a command from the king; but what the king commanded was also to prostrate themselves, which is the stretching out of hands and feet. Therefore, if it had said "and the king commanded to bow and prostrate themselves before Haman," and afterward that all the king's servants were bowing and prostrating themselves, it would have appeared that without the king's command they would not even have bowed before him. But by saying first that they were bowing and prostrating themselves, and [then] saying that so the king had commanded concerning him — this said regarding the word "prostrating themselves" — from this it follows that mere bowing they had also been doing from the start, even without a command. Now, our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said that he placed an idol on his garment, and therefore Mordecai risked his life not to bow before him. And by this it is possible to explain why it says "commanded concerning him" and does not say "commanded them": it is because he [Haman] had acted wickedly in placing the idol there, to cause people to stumble, since the king had not commanded that they bow to anything but to him himself. For the word "concerning him" does not refer back to the word "commanded," but to the verb — that is, his command was that they bow and prostrate themselves to Haman, meaning, and not to his image; for so the king had commanded them concerning him, not concerning the idol that was with him, and how much more not for the Jews. And this is [the meaning of] "and all the king's servants were bowing and prostrating themselves before Haman" — meaning, to Haman in respect of himself — "for so he had commanded concerning him," meaning, that this bowing and prostrating mentioned, the king had commanded to be done to him, but not to his idol, for the king's heart was set on nothing but himself. And therefore, "but Mordecai would not bow down nor prostrate himself" — and it does not say "he was not bowing down and prostrating himself" — to indicate that it was not because Mordecai was a minister and a man of rank, who had a seat at the king's gate, that he was too proud to prostrate himself; rather, even had he been nothing but a plain Mordecai, with no title of rank but his name alone, still he would not bow down nor prostrate himself — even if Haman were to remove the idol from his bosom — and how much more so now, when both [reasons] applied.

The Questions: What did he mean to exclude by saying, "who were in the king's gate" — it should have said, "and all the king's servants bowed down"? Why does it say, "for so had he commanded concerning him" — but surely he had commanded them, not him? Why did Mordecai not bow down? "And all" — afterward [Scripture] grants him a further increase [of honor], in that all the king's servants, even though they sit in the king's gate, would kneel and bow down to him. For it is among the customs of kings that in the place where the king is, they do not show honor to any person, for this diminishes the king's honor if one of his servants is honored in his presence [and so it is said that Uriah the Hittite rebelled against the kingdom of the house of David because he called Joab "my lord" in the presence of David]. But Ahasuerus waived his own honor and commanded that even in the king's gate they should kneel to Haman, "for so had the king commanded concerning him," and he waived his honor. And also, this was not only for Haman's honor — in which case it would have been within his power to waive it — but rather it was the king's command; and also it was not to Haman that this was commanded, that he should appoint [an officer] over it and punish the one who transgressed, on account of his having transgressed the king's command. Nevertheless, Mordecai would not bow; he resolved in his heart not to bow under any circumstance. As for the reason Mordecai refrained from bowing to him, the commentators explained that this bowing was in the nature of accepting divinity, for this was the way of the ancient nations, believers in delusions, to attribute to any man in whom they found some exceptional quality of wisdom, might, or wealth, that he was of the sons of the gods, and that a star or a supernal power flowed down upon him — as is said of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:46), "and he bowed down to Daniel, and commanded that they offer to him a meal-offering and sweet incense." Therefore Mordecai refrained from this, since he was a Jew. This is a second [reason]: that the king's decree applied only to one in whom two conditions were found — a servant of the king, and one who sits in the king's gate. And Mordecai, although one condition was found in him, that he sat in the king's gate, was not one of the king's servants, since he was a Jew, and a Jew does not become a slave under the laws of Persia. And both reasons are included in what is said, "for he had told them that he was a Jew."

"And all the king's servants bowed down and prostrated themselves, for so the king had commanded concerning him" (verse 2). It would appear that what Ahasuerus did — commanding that they bow down to Haman — he did for Mordecai's sake: he wanted Mordecai to bow down to idolatry as well, so that by this Mordecai would become completely united with Ahasuerus, inasmuch as Ahasuerus is a worshiper of idolatry. For as things stood, since Mordecai was a Jew and despised idolatry, he was not completely united with Ahasuerus, but merely sat in the king's gate (above, verses 2, 19, 21). But if Mordecai were to do as he [Ahasuerus] did, bowing to idolatry, Mordecai would become entirely a counselor to the king, and would be among those who see the king's face. This is why, in the end, when it says (below, 6:8) "let them bring the garment and the horse that he rode, etc.," it is written (ibid., verse 12) "and Mordecai returned to the king's gate" — meaning that after all this honor, he returned to the king's gate, to his original place, where he had been from the start. But that he should be among those who see the king's face — that did not happen. And all this was because it was recognized that he was a Jew, and that he hates idolatry. That is why he made Haman into an object of idolatrous worship. By this, the wording can also be resolved: why does it say "for so the king had commanded him," when it should only have needed to say "for so the king had commanded"? For had it written "for so the king had commanded," it would have implied that this was done for Haman's own sake, and that if Haman wished to forgo it, he could forgo it. Therefore it is written "for so he had commanded him" — that is, concerning Haman — so that even if Haman wished to forgo it, he could not forgo it. All this was because [the king] wanted to force Mordecai to worship idolatry. [But it will be explained shortly that this is not actually a difficulty with what it says, "for so the king had commanded him."] "bowing and prostrating themselves, etc." — What it says, "bowing and prostrating," is a doubling of language. Furthermore, it should only have needed to write "prostrating themselves," for prostration (hishtachavayah) is the spreading out of the hands and feet, whereas bowing (kri'ah) applies only to the knees. It can be explained that the bowing comes first, and afterward the prostration is added onto the bowing, and this indicates an additional measure of submission, submission added upon submission, prostrating oneself all the way to the ground — therefore it is written "bowing and prostrating." Furthermore, if one were to fall on his face without first bowing, it would not be apparent toward whom the prostration — which is the spreading out of hands and feet — is directed, since he is simply stretched out on his face. But the bowing is directed toward the one to whom he bows, for the bowing is toward the one he bows to. And when afterward he falls and prostrates himself — which is the spreading out of hands and feet — it then appears that this too is directed toward him; but the prostration alone would show nothing at all [about its direction]. Therefore the bowing must come first, and afterward he falls on his face. For this reason, it would not do to write prostration alone, since one always performs the bowing first and afterward prostrates himself. "for so he had commanded him" — meaning, for his [Haman's] sake. It does not write "for so the king had commanded," for that would imply that the king commanded that they bow before him [the king] in order to humble his people — that they should bow before Haman so that they would not rebel against King Ahasuerus; for when he humbles them by making them bow before Haman, they become humbled and do not seek to rebel against the king. Therefore it says "for so he had commanded him," meaning for Haman's sake, for his honor, and not in order to humble his people. And by this the difficulty is resolved regarding what the verse states below (verse 6), "Haman disdained to lay a hand on Mordecai." For what sense would it make to say "it seemed contemptible in Haman's eyes to lay a hand on Mordecai," seeing that, since [Mordecai] was transgressing the king's command which had ordered this, he would in any case be liable to death? But because it says "so the king had commanded him," meaning for Haman's sake, then if Haman does not seek redress for his own insult, he has authority over the matter — and therefore Mordecai was not liable to death for transgressing the king's command. This is why it says, "but it seemed contemptible to Haman to lay a hand on Mordecai." "But Mordecai would not bow down and would not prostrate himself" — it writes "yikhra" [will bow] and "yishtachaveh" [will prostrate] in the future tense, because this was not done on a single occasion only, but he did so many times; therefore it is written in the future tense, for the future tense conveys this sense with regard to something that is continual, as in (Job 1:4) "thus Job would always do." Furthermore, "he would not bow" can be explained thus: even though Mordecai could have gone by another route that would not have brought him into contact with Haman, so that Haman would not become angry, Mordecai deliberately went toward Haman with the intention that he would not bow and would not prostrate himself — and this is the sense of "he would not bow" in the future tense — and all this was in order to sanctify His blessed Name. (But it will be explained shortly that this is not a difficulty with what it says, "for so the king had commanded him.") Some raise a difficulty: why did Mordecai do this? He should have removed himself from the king's gate, rather than endanger himself and all of Israel by provoking a wicked man. But this is not a difficulty, as we say in the first chapter of Berachot (7b): "Those who forsake the Torah praise the wicked, while those who keep the Torah contend with them" (Proverbs 28:4). And all the more so with a wicked man such as Haman, who was destined to become a stumbling block and a snare to all of Israel — therefore [Mordecai] contended with this wicked man. And all the more so, since Mordecai was sanctifying the Name through this — by not bowing and not prostrating himself before Haman — he was obligated to sanctify the Name, and it is a commandment to do so, even though he could have saved his own life [by complying]. And even without this reasoning, there is likewise no difficulty, for Mordecai, who sat in the king's gate, held that position because Ahasuerus had appointed him to it, and one does not remove oneself from such an appointment; nor did Ahasuerus command him [to leave], and therefore this is not a difficulty at all.

Behold, in that it says afterward that he told them that he was a Jew, this indicates that he had given them an answer to their saying to him, "Why do you transgress, etc." And it is astonishing why his answer was not mentioned, just as their question was mentioned. But it may be explained thus: behold, our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said that he told them that he was of Israel, and they answered him, "Behold, your forefathers bowed down to Esau," and he answered that Benjamin did not bow down to Esau. And it is possible that this is alluded to in the verse, from within their statement, in that they said: If it is because you are a Jew that you transgress, how are you different from all your forefathers? And if it is because you descend from Benjamin, who did not bow down [to Esau], the case is not comparable, for here it is the command of the king, and it will cost you your head — unlike there. And this is [the meaning of] "the king's command." And in accordance with their own approach, they hinted to him, saying: If it is out of your own greatness, or out of hatred of him, that you act thus, do not do it for the sake of honor, but rather out of fear, for it is the king's command.

If Mordechai’s avowal would be sustained. Who said that he would never prostrate himself because he is a Jew, and was admonished against idolatry. — Notes: (3) Esther Rabbah 7:8. When his servants told him that Mordechai refused to kneel, Haman remarked that Mordechai’s ancestors, Yaakov, Rachel and their children had prostrated themselves before Eisav, Haman’s ancestor. Upon hearing Haman’s remark, Mordechai replied that he was a descendant of Binyamin, who was born after Yaakov’s meeting with Eisav, and who had thus never prostrated himself before Eisav. Alternatively, היעמדו דברי מרדכי means “whether Mordechai’s words will avail,” i.e., if his actions were successful they would become a precedent for others to follow.

"for he had told them that he was a Jew" — for it [bowing] was forbidden to him. Now one must ask: why did Mordecai place himself in danger, and also place all of Israel [in danger]? It would have been fitting for him to speak to Esther, so that she would remove him from the king's gate, and he would not anger Haman, after he saw that fortune was smiling upon him [Haman]. And the answer is that he could not leave the king's gate, for if he were to leave without the king's command, his blood would be upon his own head.

Behold, the way of the enemies of the Jews, when a man of Israel transgresses the king's command, is to inform against him to the government, to make him liable to death at the king's hand — like the matter of "the Chaldean men who slandered the Jews" (Daniel 3:8) — and moreover, they would not delay it for him day after day. But these men delayed, day after day, saying to him, "Why..." etc. [do you transgress the king's command], and even afterward, "they told Haman" and not King Ahasuerus. Now, there would be room to attribute this to their love for him [Mordecai], but he says this is not so. Rather, in that they spoke to him day after day and he did not listen to them, and also in that "they told Haman" — that is, and not the king — this was not because they were acting piously; the matter was only in order to see whether Mordecai's words would stand. This is because they had become jealous upon seeing that they themselves were bowing and prostrating themselves while he did not bow and did not prostrate himself, so that he appeared to be exalting himself over them. And they said, "If we tell the king, behold, he will kill him — but what is gained, that he should perish through his own foolishness?" Rather, their whole relief and desire was that he submit and bow down and not defeat them, even though the king would kill him for what had already occurred. Therefore they held back and pressed him day after day, and only afterward told Haman and not the king, in order to see whether Mordecai's words would stand — for by speaking to him day after day, it was possible that he would incline his ear and submit and act as they did and lower his pride like them. And also, by telling Haman, that he would go on passing before him in the fury of his wrath and the greatness of his hatred, perhaps he would be terrified before him and fall down and prostrate himself out of fear, lest Haman tell the king in a way that his words would not stand — for he had told them that he was a Jew, of a people that is despised and plundered — whom slaves have ruled over — while they themselves were great officers, and he was indicating by his words that, since he was a Jew, he was of greater standing than they. Therefore they schemed to act so that he would not get away without bowing and prostrating himself. Or, one might say that "he had told them," etc. — and this should be considered carefully, for surely his being a Jew was not hidden from them, so it would not have been fitting to say "for he had told them," except that he told them that it was specifically because he was a Jew — that is, that this is why he would not bow to him. But the wording "that he was a Jew" appears to be telling them something new, that he was a Jew. This is as our Sages, of blessed memory, said: that they said to him, "But were not your ancestors Jews like you, and did they not bow down?" And he answered that he was not descended from those particular ancestors, for he was of the tribe of Benjamin, which did not bow down to Esau. And this increased their fury, [prompting them] to say, "Is it conceivable to claim that he alone is a Jew, and no one else among the rest of the Jews?" And this is [the meaning of] "that he was a Jew" — that is, he, and no other. Or, one might say, carefully considering the word "stand" [in "whether Mordecai's words would stand"] — for there is no valid "standing" in his words. Rather, it is this: they said, "If we tell the king that he transgressed his command, perhaps he will punish him by removing him from his high position — for he sits at the king's gate — but will not put him to death." Therefore, "they told Haman," who would not desist from killing him, whether by his own hand or through the king. And the reason was to see whether the words he had told them — that he was a Jew — would avail to save him: that is, if he says "that he was a Jew" and lays bare his soul, prepared to die over it, whether that merit would stand for him. Or, one might say that "he had told," etc. — for they said, "If we tell the king, he will not kill him except for having transgressed his command, and not out of regard for Haman's honor." Therefore "they told Haman," to see whether [his words] would stand, etc. — for he had told them that he was a Jew, and he considered it a sin for a Jew to bow down to Haman — [conduct] deserving disgrace, wrath, and the vomit of shame upon Haman's honor — in such a way that his fury would rise in his anger, and he would put him to death over the honor of his own name.

The Questions: What is stated, "to see whether Mordecai's words would stand, for he had told them that he was a Jew," makes no sense, for they were not in doubt that he was a Jew; it should have said, "to see whether Mordecai's words would stand," which he had told them, that he would not bow down. "Now it came to pass" — the servants did not inform on him to Haman out of hatred, but only because [Haman] had imposed upon them to keep the king's command and to protest against those who transgressed his will; therefore they did not inform on him until they had first warned him. This is what is meant by "now it came to pass, when they spoke to him" — this a second time — that they persisted in speaking to him day after day and he did not listen to them; then they told Haman, "to see whether [his words] would stand." That is to say: Mordecai had told them that the reason he does not bow to Haman is that he is a Jew and cannot bow to him on account of his religion. But this excuse of his would be valid only for his not bowing to him at a time when Haman is walking at a distance and does not see him — for then his not bowing would be only on account that [Haman] had made himself a god. But if he were to bow to him at a time when Haman sees him, then this would not be for the sake of divinity but merely on account of his rank, for it is the way [of people] to bow before any minister or great man. And if, even at a time when Haman would see him, he does not bow to him, then it would be known that he does this not because of his Jewishness and his religion, but rather because he is rebelling against the kingdom. This is what is meant by "they told Haman, to see" — that is, that Haman should look upon Mordecai, and by this they would know whether Mordecai's words and his excuse — which he had told them, that this is why he does not bow, because he is a Jew — would stand. For if, at a time when Haman sees him and comes near to him, he bows to him, then his words would stand the test, and they would know that it was because of his religion that he refrained from bowing when not in his presence, and there would be no sin upon him for having transgressed. But if, even at a time when Haman sees him, he does not bow to him, then his words and his excuse, that he is a Jew, would not stand — for even though he is a Jew, his religion does not prevent him from bowing to a minister or great man in his presence; then they would know that he is rebelling against the kingdom.

"And it came to pass, when they spoke to him day after day, etc." (verse 4). In the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:7-8): Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Binyamin son of Rabbi Levi: Rachel's sons were equal in their being tested, and equal in their greatness. This is [the meaning of] what is written (Genesis 39:10), "And it came to pass, as she spoke to Joseph day after day," and here it is written, "And it came to pass, when they said to him day after day." "And he did not listen to them" — and further on it is written (ibid.), "and he did not listen to her, to lie beside her." And their greatness was equal — this is what is written (Genesis 41:42), "And Pharaoh removed his ring from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen," and here it is written (below, 8:2), "And the king removed his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai." Further on it is written (Genesis 41:43), "And he had him ride in the second chariot that he had, and they proclaimed before him, 'Avrech,'" and here it is written (below, 6:9), "and let the apparel and the horse be given... and let them proclaim before him: So shall it be done for the man whom the king desires to honor." What did Mordecai say to the one who said to him (verse 3), "Why do you transgress the king's command?" Rabbi Levi said: Mordecai said to them, Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, warned us in the Torah (Deuteronomy 27:15), "Cursed is the man who makes a graven or molten image," and this wicked man makes himself into an idol. And Isaiah the prophet warned us (Isaiah 2:22), "Cease from man, whose breath is in his nostrils, for how is he to be accounted of?" And not only that, but we are the nobility (isgansirin) of the Holy One, blessed be He, for all the tribes were born outside the Land, but my ancestor was born in the Land of Israel. They said, let us tell him — immediately, "and they told Haman, etc." Haman said to them: We will say to him — did not his ancestor bow down to my ancestor? This is what is written (Genesis 33:6-7), "And the maidservants drew near, etc., and afterward Joseph and Rachel drew near and bowed down." He replied: but Benjamin was not yet born. They said to him: this is what is written, "and they told Haman." This Midrash comes to say that Joseph and Benjamin are alike in this: that they are strong in faith, and they are firm and steadfast — no one can seduce them toward evil; rather, they stand firm in their faith. And all of this is because they are planted together with the Shechinah. For Benjamin — behold, the Shechinah rested in his portion, as it is written (Deuteronomy 33:12), "and He dwells between his shoulders." Moreover, he was born in the Land of Israel, from which you can see that he is a neighbor to Hashem, and it is hard to remove him from there, since he is with the Shechinah. And Joseph, too, had the Shechinah in his portion — behold, the Tabernacle of Shiloh was in his portion (Megillah 16b) — therefore they are considered to be attached to the Shechinah. And two things that are joined together cannot be separated from one another at all. Therefore he said that, regarding Joseph, it is written (Genesis 39:10), "And it came to pass, as she spoke to Joseph day after day" — and the meaning of "nisan" [tested] is that they were tested through trial in this: that she would speak to him every single day, and wanted to seduce him, and he was tested through this. And likewise regarding Mordecai it is written, "And it came to pass, when they spoke to him day after day" — he too was tested through this. And therefore, likewise, their greatness was equal, since they were equal in their righteousness — that they were tested and stood firm and did not turn away from Hashem; so too the greatness that Hashem gave them was equal, and their greatness consisted in this, that they were close to the kingship, and therefore the king gave his ring into their hand. And this happened to them because they are close to the King, the King of kings of kings, and did not turn away from Him; therefore the King — that is, Hashem — was close to them. And because of this they merited that the king gave his ring into their hand — that is, the king of flesh and blood below — and this shows that the king of flesh and blood is close to them. And these two things, namely, the being-tested and the greatness, belong together: for the being-tested consists in their being attached to Him, blessed be He, and not turning away from Him; and the greatness consists in this, that Hashem is with them in every matter. And just as they are with Hashem, so Hashem is with them. And Mordecai said further: my ancestor was born in the Land, whereas the other tribes were born outside the Land (Esther Rabbah 7:8). And from this you learn that Benjamin belongs to the portion of Hashem, for all the other lands belong to the nations, which do not belong to the portion of Hashem; only the Land of Israel belongs to the portion of Hashem. And therefore they said (Ketubot 110b), "Whoever dwells outside the Land is as one who has no God" — because the Land of Israel belongs to Hashem, while the other lands, since they belong to the nations, the higher [heavenly] princes rule over them, and therefore it is considered as though he has no God. If so, there is no one among the tribes who is as far from idolatry as Benjamin. And when they said these words to Haman, he said: Is he better than Jacob, who bowed down to Esau (Genesis 33:3), because Esau was more important? If so, even if you say that it is not fitting for you to bow down to an idol, since Jacob was obligated, on account of Esau's importance, to bow down to him, Mordecai ought to do so as well. To this Mordecai responded, "But Benjamin was not yet born" — for at that time Esau was more important, and his hand was over Jacob. But once Benjamin was born — who is the last of his sons, and who is "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense" to Esau (based on Isaiah 8:14), as they said (Genesis Rabbah 73:7): Esau falls only at the hand of Rachel's sons, as it is said (Jeremiah 49:20), "Surely the young ones of the flock shall drag them away" — because of this, Esau no longer has the upper hand. If so, reason does not dictate that he should bow down to him on account of his importance — the only thing left is that he has made himself into an idol. And as for why only "the young ones of the flock" oppose him — this was explained above regarding (2:7), "and he brought up Hadassah," that she is supernal wisdom. "And they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai's words would stand, etc." And it is difficult: why was Haman not troubled when they told Haman that Mordecai would not bow down and would not prostrate himself, and afterward (below, verse 5), when he saw Mordecai not bowing down and not prostrating himself, Haman was troubled? And it may be said that every person is affected more when he sees the matter itself occurring before his own eyes. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:9): "And Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow down and did not prostrate himself" — Rabbi Ivo said: "Let the eyes of the wicked grow dim, that they may not see" (based on Psalms 69:24) — because the sights seen by the eyes of the wicked bring them down to Gehinnom. This is what is written (Genesis 6:2), "And the sons of God saw the daughters of man"; (ibid. 9:22), "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw"; "And Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan were evil" (ibid. 28:8); "And Balak son of Zippor saw" (Numbers 22:2); "And Balaam saw that it was good in the eyes of Hashem to bless Israel" (ibid. 24:1); "And Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow down and prostrate himself to him." But the sights seen by the eyes of the righteous are not so — rather, it elevates them to the highest height, as it is written (Genesis 18:2), "And he lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold, three men"; "and he saw, and behold, a ram" (ibid. 22:13); "and he saw, and behold, a well in the field" (ibid. 29:2); "and he saw, and behold, the bush was burning" (Exodus 3:2); "and Phinehas saw" (Numbers 25:7). Therefore they rejoice at the sight of their eyes, as it is said (Job 22:19), "The righteous shall see and rejoice." Thus far [the Midrash]. In this Midrash as well, he was troubled by this: why is it that when Mordecai's words were told to Haman, Haman was not filled with wrath, but when he saw that Mordecai would not bow down and would not prostrate himself, then he was filled with wrath? And concerning this he hinted at a deep matter: that through a person's act of seeing, [the thing] comes forth into actuality, for the eye brings the seeing into actuality. And when it is written "and he saw," and he wishes to bring [the matter] out into complete actuality, then absence and Gehinnom cling to him. For the wicked man, so long as he does not come forth into complete actuality, and his existence is reckoned as existing only in potential, absence does not cling to him, and he remains in existence, since he is not [yet] in actuality. But when his existence is in actuality — and this occurs when the eye brings a thing forth into actuality — then absence clings to him. For it is not fitting that the wicked man be found in actuality, for every wicked man is "wicked, deserving of death" (Numbers 35:31) — meaning, that it is fitting that his existence be nullified, and that he receive absence. Therefore his seeing brings him down to Gehinnom, which is [itself] absence. But the righteous man is the opposite of this: for when his existence comes forth completely into actuality, he comes forth to complete perfection. And in this world, since the righteous man is not [yet] in complete actuality, he is therefore in distress. But in the World to Come, when he is joined to complete perfection, then he is in good. Therefore, when Haman saw that Mordecai would not bow down and would not prostrate himself, and his own wickedness came into actuality, then "Haman was filled with wrath" — this is Gehinnom, and this matter would bring him to ruin. For when the wicked wish to come into actuality, this itself is the source of their absence — and this matter we have explained elsewhere as well.

This teaches that a person is affected more by what his own eyes see than by what true reporters tell him — for behold, at everything that they had told him, he did not become angry, until he saw with his own eyes, and then "Haman was filled with wrath." This is [the meaning of] "And Haman saw... and Haman was filled with wrath" — in contrast to [mere] hearing with the ear. It also teaches the greatness of his [Haman's] arrogance, for the wrath of the king's servants had been aroused only by his failing to do even one of the two things — bowing and prostrating himself. This is [the meaning of] "he does not bow down and does not prostrate himself, and they said," etc. — and it is not stated "he does not bow down, and [yet] prostrates himself" [i.e., doing one but not the other]; rather, he was not willing to consent unless he did both together, and it was the absence of both together that provoked the anger. This is [the meaning of] "Haman saw that Mordecai was not bowing and prostrating himself to him" — and it does not say "was not prostrating himself to him" alone — for his soul refused to be comforted even if just one of the two were secured. Therefore, "Haman was filled" [with wrath]. It is also possible, based on what our Sages, of blessed memory, said — that he [Haman] placed an idol upon his garments. In this way, one might explain that all the king's servants were bowing and prostrating themselves not on account of the idol on his garment, for they did not intend the idol, but rather to Haman for his own sake, since the king had so commanded on his behalf even without the idol. But Mordecai would not bow down and would not prostrate himself at all, even were the idol to be removed — and this is why it is expressed in the future tense [signifying a permanent, unconditional refusal]. Therefore he [the king's servant] said to him, "Why do you transgress," etc. And his [Mordecai's] argument at first was that he was a Jew, and would rather be killed than bow to an idol. Therefore they did not inform on him to the king, for he would say that [the king] had not commanded bowing to the idol — [his defense being,] "he is a Jew." Therefore they held back day after day, and told Haman, so that he would act in a way to see whether Mordecai's words would stand — that he had told them that he was a Jew, meaning that it was on account of the idol forbidden to Jews. And Haman would see whether his words would stand: by removing the idol from his garment, he would see whether Mordecai would then bow and prostrate himself, as he had claimed. "And Haman saw that Mordecai was not bowing and prostrating himself to him" alone — for Haman had done so, having removed the idol from his garment; then "Haman was filled with wrath." Now, it is fitting to note what has changed in this verse compared to the one further on, for there it says, "Haman was filled with wrath against Mordecai," while here it does not mention his name. It is possible that the verse that follows gives the reason for this — [explaining] why it was stated here plainly, without saying "against Mordecai": namely, "and he disdained to lay a hand [on Mordecai alone]," etc., and he poured out his wrath upon all the Jews. But in the instance further on, where it says "against Mordecai," this is because there it was afterward, when all Israel had already been [decreed] to be destroyed and killed, etc., in the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar; whereas what filled him with wrath now was only over Mordecai alone, to destroy him quickly and not delay him until the appointed day.

The Questions: Why did Haman's wrath not burn until he saw with his own eyes? Did he not believe them? "And Haman saw" — now that Haman saw, and still Mordecai did not kneel and bow down to him, by this he saw and discerned that Mordecai was not kneeling and bowing down to him for his own reasons — that he harbored hatred against him, and his eye was begrudging of his honor. For now that Haman sees him, the bowing would not be attributed to the [heavenly] minister or star that governs over him, as it would be were he to bow to him while [Haman] was at a distance, but rather to him himself, on account of his being a minister and a great man. This is why it says specifically, "and does not bow down to him" — and then Haman was filled with wrath.

"But it seemed contemptible in his eyes" — He says: pay attention to the phrase "for they had told him of the people of Mordecai." For behold, Mordecai the Jew — his name had already been stated, as in the king's word to Haman, "and do so for Mordecai the Jew" — so why was it necessary to tell him this? And furthermore, it does not say "that they said to him," but rather "they told [higidu]," which denotes a narration and a lengthy account, informing him of the particulars of his people. Moreover, it says "the people of Mordecai" twice in one verse. Rather, he means that Haman ascended, step by step, the rungs of wickedness. First: "but it seemed contemptible in his eyes to lay a hand on Mordecai alone" — so that it would not be against him alone; yet he had not thought at all, as of yet, about all the Jews. This is because they had told him the particulars of the people of Mordecai, that he was of the tribe of Benjamin. This is [the meaning of] "and they told" — that they recounted to him his lineage, and through this he recalled Saul, his forefather, who destroyed Amalek. For it had become known to him, as in the statement of Zeresh his wife: "if Mordecai be of the seed of the Jews, before whom you have begun to fall" — as will be explained further on, please God, that she said: "if he is of the seed before whom you have begun to fall," meaning of the seed of Saul, "you shall not prevail against him." In such a way that it was told to him that he was a Benjaminite, and so he said in his heart that it would not be to his glory to kill a single member of the seed of the one who destroyed all of Amalek. Therefore he had no desire to kill Mordecai alone, for "they told him of the people" — the particulars of Mordecai — meaning that therefore his intent turned against the entire tribe of Benjamin. But afterward he turned and ascended to a further rung: "and he sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus." And should you ask: what did the rest of the tribes sin against him? For this reason it again says "the people of Mordecai" — meaning that indeed, all of them together are, in some sense, called by the name "the people of Mordecai," and therefore he sought to uproot everyone who was called by his name. Alternatively, this gives the reason why Mordecai was contemptible and loathsome in his eyes, even though he sat in rank at the king's gate. Is it not because they had told him the fact particular to Mordecai himself, that he was a man of Benjamin, from the smallest of the tribes, and it was beneath his honor to consider him worthy of a quarrel? Therefore, "Haman sought," etc. And lest one say: but even now he has not repaired his honor, for people will say that he [Mordecai] was significant enough to be considered his adversary, and that what he did in killing all the Jews was an act of violence he committed — therefore it says "the people of Mordecai," meaning that they are all his people and he is like a king over them. On the contrary, people will say that Mordecai is great, for he ruled over a great people; that is why he [Haman] laid his hand upon them, and it would be an honor for him, for "he contended with a great one, and prevailed." Alternatively, he says: pay attention to the statement "and Haman sought," for the mention of his name is superfluous, since the verse is already speaking of him; it would have been fitting to say simply "and he sought to destroy." Also, it says "to destroy" alone, and not, as in his later decree, "to destroy, to slay," etc. Rather, [the reason] is that for the sake of honor — so that people should not say that Mordecai was insignificant, such that he would be considered worthy of being his adversary — therefore, "it seemed contemptible in his eyes," etc.: "for they had told him of the people of Mordecai," and it was against all of them that he sought to lay his hand. And should you ask: why did he set his face against Israel, and did not call to mind Pharaoh and all who rose up against them, for "all who devour him shall be held guilty"? Therefore he says: this was the source of his strength — for behold, already, "Haman sought to destroy," etc., and this came about through what he had caused them to sin at the feast of Ahasuerus; from that time he had prepared to destroy them, and afterward, in his decree, that they should waste away in their iniquity. And should you ask: if so, then only those of Shushan should be killed, and those of the rest of the world should not be killed, since they had not sinned — so how could he destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus? To this it answers: "the people of Mordecai" — for they are all one people, mutually responsible for one another. And therefore it states only "to destroy" alone [at that point], for at the time of the feast it was only "to destroy" in his heart.

The Questions: What did the people of Mordecai sin, [that] one man should sin and his entire congregation be destroyed? "But it seemed contemptible" — [Scripture] recounts the wickedness of Haman and his arrogance. For although the main cause of the wrath was against Mordecai — since it appeared to him [Haman] that it was not on account of his [Mordecai's] religion that he refrained from bowing to him, but only out of his hatred toward him — nevertheless, once the king's servants had told him about the people of Mordecai, in that they related that the refusal to bow encompassed the people of Mordecai on account of their Israelite religion, and from this angle he came to hate all of Israel and their religion; he then sought to destroy all the Jews because they are the people of Mordecai and share in his religion, and he wished to wipe out that entire religion by destroying those who observed it.

"But it seemed contemptible in his eyes to lay hands on Mordecai, etc." (verse 6). In the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:10): "Despised, son of a despised one — elsewhere it is written (Genesis 25:34), 'Thus Esau despised the birthright,' and here it is written, 'But it seemed contemptible [vayivez] in his eyes'" — [end of the Midrash's citation]. It appears that the Midrash was troubled by the fact that the expression "vayivez" does not properly belong here; rather it should have said, "and he did not lay hands on Mordecai, for he was insignificant in his eyes." But [the reason this term is used] is that such is the nature of his wickedness — that he despises everyone — and therefore it says "vayivez." And why does he despise everyone? Because he himself is despised, and therefore he despises everyone. For this reason it says, "despised, son of a despised one," meaning that he is despised and distanced from everyone — as Obadiah said to Esau (Obadiah 1:2), "Behold, I have made you small among the nations; you are utterly despised" — meaning that you are distanced from all existing beings, and cast away from them. And for this reason he would despise another, just as he himself is despised. Therefore it is written here "vayivez," for the term "vayivez" implies that he is utterly distanced and despised in his own eyes; and since he is despised, this is only because he is distanced and separated from [other] creatures — and since he is separated from [other] creatures, then he is certainly despised, for anyone who is distanced from [other] creatures is himself distanced and loathsome to them. And this is evident from the very beginning of his creation, in that Esau emerged "like a hairy mantle" (Genesis 25:25), and certainly this is a repulsive and loathsome thing. Therefore Esau, even though he possesses very great dominion, is nevertheless himself despised and repulsive, and he is separated from [the rest of] creation, and therefore he too despises another. And for this reason the term "vayivez" is written (Genesis 25:34), which indicates great distance, and this itself indicates that he is distanced. And in the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 65:11): "[Isaac] called Esau his elder son" (Genesis 27:1) — the Holy One, blessed be He, said: If in your eyes he is great, in My eyes he is small, as it is written (Obadiah 1:2), "I have made you small among the nations; you are utterly despised, etc." And this Midrash means to say that Esau and his offspring possess pride more than any other, and are not humble of spirit. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, said: If in your eyes he is great — when you see in him the greatness of his dominion — in My eyes he is despised, since he has no fitting right to existence at all. For Hashem, blessed be He, from Whom all existence in the world derives, He who brings them into being, said to Isaac: even if in your eyes he is great, in My eyes he is small. For the existence of this world is from Hashem, blessed be He, and Esau has no fitting right to existence at all, and therefore he is small in the eyes of Hashem, blessed be He. And for this reason Esau distances himself from, and despises, the righteous, who are the essential purpose of the world's existence. "And Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, [even] the people of Mordecai" — and why was it necessary to write "the people of Mordecai"? And in the Gemara (Megillah 13b): "It seemed contemptible to him to lay hands on Mordecai alone" — Rava said: first it is written "on Mordecai," and afterward "the people of Mordecai" — who are these? The Sages. And finally (below, verse 13), "to destroy, to slay, and to annihilate all the Jews." And the explanation of this is: what did Haman have against Israel, that he would want to destroy all of Israel? Rather, Haman's opposition began with Mordecai, for Haman in particular was opposed to Mordecai, and Mordecai to Haman. And when he began with Mordecai — since all the disciples of the Sages are bound together — therefore, from this angle, it was as if all the Sages were opposing him, and he wished to rule over them. And when he sought to destroy all the Sages, he sought also to destroy all of Israel, for the disciples of the Sages have a bond with Israel, since Israel cannot exist without disciples of the Sages, and therefore he wished to kill everyone. And were it not for this bond and connection of Israel with Mordecai, then even though Haman had very great power, nevertheless, since Israel was not opposing him, Haman would not have had dominion over them. And furthermore, Haman is a single individual, and an individual has no power to oppose the many, for the many are distinct from the individual. And it is not comparable to a king, who is considered like the collective whole; but Haman is only an individual, and his power is not so great as to oppose the collective whole. Therefore they said that the primary opposition of Haman was to Mordecai, and when he began with Mordecai, his opposition extended to the Sages, and afterward to all of Israel as a whole. For the disciples of the Sages have a connection to Mordecai, who is the primary one, and afterward all of Israel [has a connection] to the Sages among them. And therefore Haman opposed Mordecai alone.

A pur was cast. Whoever cast, cast, and the verse does not specify who [cast the pur]. This is an abbreviated verse. Meaning “lot.” Scripture explains; and what is the pur? “That is the lot.” He cast lots [to determine] in which month he would succeed. For a specific day. On which day of the month he would succeed. — Notes: (4) Haman felt gratified when the lot he cast resulted in the month of Adar, because Moshe died in that month so it was obviously an inopportune time for the Jews. (Maseches Megillah 13b)

"he cast pur" (hipil pur) — this word is Persian, and its meaning is "lot" (goral). And behold, this [casting] was at the opposite [end of the year] — it was the month of Nisan. And some say that he chose to destroy Israel in the month of Adar because Moses our master was gathered to his people in that month, but he did not know that he was also born in that month. And others said [it was] on account of the conjunction of the upper [celestial] bodies in the constellation of Capricorn (the Goat), which is the twelfth [house] from the constellation of Aquarius (the Water-Pitcher), which is the constellation of Israel. And what is correct is that thus it came out by his lot, for his judgment was from Hashem, and Hashem prolonged the time until Israel would do repentance and escape. The nun of "yeshno" is additional, and some say the vav is also [additional].

Behold, when it says "which is the month Nisan" the word "which is" appears superfluous, for who does not know that the first month is the month of Nisan? And likewise it says "that is, the lot" — which is why our Rabbis, of blessed memory, needed to say that the lot reverts back onto Haman himself. And likewise, in the phrase "which is the month Adar," the word "which is" is superfluous. Now, regarding the verse "This month shall be for you the head of months" (Exodus 12:2), in our commentary on the Torah, with the help of Heaven, we wrote that He, may He be blessed, said, "this month shall be for you the head of months," meaning that it will always be good for you in it; and this is [the intent of] the saying of our Rabbis, of blessed memory: whoever has a grievance against an idolater should sue him in it — and likewise it is said that Nisan is therefore called by this name after the miracles (nissim) [performed in it], etc. And let it not enter your mind that when it says "head of months" it means that you should begin counting the months of the year from it, for this is already first for you among the months of the year — all the more so according to the statement of Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, that from Abraham onward they intercalated the years in the order that we count [today]. Therefore, what I said — that it is the "head of months" — means that it should be a head from which good continually flows to you in it, always. Now let us come to the matter before us. It says: see, now, the foolishness of this wicked Haman — in which month did the arrogance of his heart mislead him, to seek evil against the people of Hashem? In the first month! And he did not know that it is the month of Nisan — meaning, it is, in its very essence, disposed to have miracles (nissim) done in it, as its name suggests, and for vengeance to be taken in it against those who rise up against Israel, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said, that whoever has a grievance against an idolater prevails. Therefore [it says] "that is, the lot" — meaning, behold, Haman was casting the pur upon the days and upon the months, to see which would be fit for Israel to fall in it, so that Israel would fall before him; but in truth, the word "that" — namely, the aforementioned Nisan — is itself "the lot," not for Israel to fall in it, but rather for Haman, for it was prepared before him, ready to bring him down. And so it was: not four full days passed before he was hanged, in Nisan itself — for on the sixteenth day of it the king's scribes were summoned, etc., and afterward came the three fast days, among which was the first day of Pesach, and on the day after it he was hanged — while he walked in darkness, casting lots from day to day and from month to month, twelve times, and his lot fell on Nisan, in which he would be hanged, close by it, so that it would not go out from the month of Nisan. Now, our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said that he chose the month of Adar because Moshe Rabbeinu passed away in it. There is no doubt that the one who told him that this was the day of Moshe's death also told him that it was likewise the day of his birth, for the righteous have their years completed in a full count of days, as it is said, "I will fulfill the number of your days" (Exodus 23:26); therefore the day of death is the day of birth. But what arose in his mind was a spirit of confusion, for he thought that the shefa (the flow of divine influence) which that month acquired at Moshe's birth was nullified by his passing, not knowing that it endures forever, and that month remains perpetually in the state of that acquisition. And this is [the meaning of] "which is the month Adar" — meaning, it remains in its own [same] state, and the influence was not removed by his passing. It is also possible to say that "it is the lot" [means the lot was] "before Haman" — meaning, before Haman the lot appeared to fall out in his favor, but not before Him, may He be blessed, for his entire judgment was not from Hashem — for He has not forsaken, and will not forsake.

The Questions: The words "before Haman" are superfluous, and also what is stated, "from day to day and from month to month," has no explanation. Also, is it not so that in such a providential matter a reason must necessarily be found — why did the lot fall specifically on the thirteenth of Adar? "In the month" — "that is, the lot [cast] before Haman" — this lot was one of the kinds of lots that was called by the name "pur." This lot was habitually cast before Haman at all times, and by means of this lot he cast from day to day. Now, the lot was on the thirteenth of Nisan (as stated in verse 12), and Haman's intention was certainly to take vengeance on the people of Hashem immediately; so he began his casting from the fourteenth of Nisan, which is the following day, but it did not succeed for him. He then cast again for the fifteenth and sixteenth of Nisan, and each time the lot pushed him off, until the end of the days of the month. Once he reached the next month, he began from the first day of Iyar, and the lot kept pushing him off from day to day until the last day, which is the thirteenth of Iyar — for the lot must necessarily fall on one of the days being cast for, and it was by the providence of Hashem that it fell on the later day, so that Israel would gain time. Afterward Haman thought to himself that perhaps the month itself was not a favorable one, and he began to cast lots for the months, starting from Nisan, the month he was currently in, but the lot did not come up [in his favor]. So too the lot pushed him off from month to month until the last month, which is Adar; and he no longer cast for the days of that month, because already in the first casting the day thirteen had come out, so his lot [for the month] fell on the thirteenth of Adar. Now, had he cast lots for the months first — in which case it would likewise have fallen on Adar, being the later month — and afterward cast for the days, the lot would have come out on the last day of the month of Adar. But because he cast for the days first, and it was not yet in his mind to cast for the months, it fell on the last day counting from the fourteenth [of the cycle he had started], which is the following thirteenth day. And this is what is meant by "from day to day and from month to month": first the lot pushed him off from day to day, and afterward from month to month. In any case, from this lot alone he should already have seen that the counsel of Hashem was manifest in this lot, to gain time for the salvation of Israel. And this is why it says "that is, the lot [cast] before Haman" — for this lot was prepared before Haman for his own downfall.

"In the first month, which is the month of Nisan, etc." (verse 7). This is why it wrote that this time was "in the month of Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus" — so that you should not say that this lot was like other lots, for anyone can cast a lot however he wishes. Therefore it stated that this lot took place in such-and-such a year of the king's reign, in the first month, to indicate that this lot was a very great matter — and whenever something is a great matter, Scripture records in which year of the king's reign the event occurred. And as for what it says, "from day to day and from month to month" — it means to say day one, day two, i.e., the days of the week, and it was concerning these that the lot was cast, not the days of the month. This is also how it appears in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:11), which explains there only the days of the week and the months, but not the days of the month. For it is impossible to cast a lot regarding both the days of the week and the days of the month together, because sometimes they do not coincide; for if the lot fell on the fourth day of the week, and the lot also fell on the tenth day of the month, sometimes the fourth day of the week does not fall on the tenth of the month. Therefore one can only cast a lot regarding which day of the week, and regarding which month. And this is also implied by the verse, which states "from day to day and from month to month" — for it should have said "from month to month, from day to day" if "from day to day" meant the day of the month. Rather, "from day to day" means: on which day of the week it would fall. One may raise a question: since the lot was not cast regarding the day of the month, then why did it write in the letters that the decree would take effect specifically on the thirteenth of the month — what is different about the thirteenth of the month, that it was not some other day? Rather, one may answer that this was in order to show that there was real substance to the lot: when Haman cast the lot as to which day of the week the decree would fall on, and the lot fell on day one, and this day on which the lot fell happened to be the thirteenth of the month — this showed that the lot was true, since the two lots coincided together. However, according to the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:11) it appears that Haman did not cast the lot regarding the day of the month at all, as we have said, for the Midrash mentions only which day of the week was cast by lot. It appears that since the lot fell on the twelfth month, it was fitting for this to take place within the essential part of the twelfth month, whereas when it falls within the diminished part of the month, that is not the essential part of the month. Therefore, whatever can take place within the essential part of the month is more fitting. Thus the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth of the month are not the essential part of the month. And as for why he did not choose the fourteenth day, which is more central — this is because it is the half of the month, and at that point the month is entirely light, and it is not fitting that destruction and annihilation should occur then, for annihilation is considered darkness, not light. And by the fifteenth of the month, most of it has already passed, so that is not the essential part of the month either — and all the more so, any day beyond the fifteenth, when the essential part of the month has already passed. Even though the fourteenth day is not yet full light — for it is on the fifteenth day that it is full light — nevertheless, since on the fifteenth day the light also begins to diminish, the fifteenth is not considered full light; rather, the fourteenth day is called full light, because the entire fourteenth day is full and not diminished. Therefore the only day fit for destruction was the thirteenth, and so Haman chose this day. Furthermore, one can say — and this is the main point — that Haman thought the thirteenth day was fitting for this, because once the lot fell on the twelfth month, which is the final month, that would be, Heaven forbid, the time of the end and conclusion of Israel. And he reasoned: all thirty days before Passover belong to Passover, for indeed one inquires into and expounds the laws of Passover thirty days in advance. And all these thirty days belong to Passover, as will be further explained. Therefore the thirteenth day specifically has no connection to Passover, for it is more than thirty days before it. For there remain sixteen days of Adar, since Adar is a deficient month, plus another fourteen days of Nisan — that makes thirty. Therefore the thirteenth day has no connection at all to Passover, since it does not fall within the thirty days preceding Passover. But from the fourteenth day onward, there no longer remain a full thirty days until Passover. And prior to reaching the thirteenth, we have already explained that Haman thought that the reason the lot fell on the twelfth month, the end of the months, was that it was fitting to be the end of Israel. Therefore, whatever day could occur as close as possible to the end, one could say that this was a sign, Heaven forbid, that it would be the end for Israel. However, it was not fitting for this to be later than the thirteenth day, since anything beyond the thirteenth falls within the thirty days of Passover, which is Israel's redemption and rescue. Therefore one must not bring the decree within those thirty days that belong to Passover. Hence it says that no day was more suited for this than the thirteenth of the month. Nevertheless, if the lot had fallen on the third day of the week, and the third day of the week fell on the tenth of the month, even though this would not have been fully at the end, the lot overrides the consideration of doing the deed as close to the end as possible. For the day of the week was determined by lot, and a lot cannot be nullified; rather, whatever day the lot fell on is treated as being as close to the end as possible. Nevertheless, one can also explain that the lot was also cast regarding the day of the month, and as for the difficulty of why it is not written "from month to month, from day to day" instead — this is because it comes to indicate that the lot was also cast regarding which day of the week, and therefore it is written "from day to day and from month to month." The manner of this lot, according to its plain sense, was as follows: he wrote on twelve slips the names of the twelve months. He then took twelve more slips, eleven of them blank, and on the remaining one was written "lot." He would take one of the slips on which the names of the months were written, and then take one of the other slips, and whichever month came up together with the slip on which "lot" was written — behold, the lot fell on that month. And as for what it says, "they cast pur, that is, the lot, before Haman" — this means that there was someone before him who knew the procedure of casting lots, and knew by skill how it was done. Haman himself did not cast the lot, since it was performed by an expert, and therefore it is written "before Haman." And as for why the lot was cast specifically in the first month — this is because the very act of casting the lot was itself a beginning toward their destruction, inasmuch as he wanted to know which time was most suited for destroying them. And since it was a beginning toward the destruction, it was fitting for it to take place in the first month, which is itself also a beginning. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:11) it appears that when Haman cast the lot regarding which day of the week, it did not fall on any single day, but when he cast the lot regarding the months, it fell on one month. The reason for this is that it is not fitting for any day of the week to have the lot fall upon it for the destruction and annihilation of Israel, for all seven days of Creation, the whole world was created for the sake of Israel, as the verse hints (Genesis 1:1), "In the beginning [bereishit] He created" — the world was created for the sake of Israel, and "reishit" [the first, or beginning] refers to none other than Israel, as it is said (Jeremiah 2:3), "Israel is holy to Hashem, the first fruits of His increase" (Rashi, Genesis 1:1). But the lot did fall on the twelfth month, because the month of Adar contains within it an aspect of the non-existence of Israel, for the month of Adar is the last of the months, and it signifies the end and the conclusion. According to this, one must certainly say that the blank slips were more numerous than those inscribed with the names of the days — for otherwise, how could it be that the lot would never fall on any of the days? Rather, the blank slips were more numerous than the inscribed ones. And by this there was a test: even though it was possible that the lot would not fall on any of the days, if the lot had fallen on one of the days, this would have been complete proof that the lot was true. But Haman thought the opposite: that the reason the lot fell regarding the months and did not fall regarding the days was because the month of Adar is the last of the months, signifying that in this month there would be an end for them; and so the lot fell regarding the months, which signify the end, and not regarding the days. But the days do not signify the end — only the months do. And as for the fact that the lot fell on the month of Adar — do not say that there was no substance to this lot, since Haman's plan was not ultimately fulfilled. That is not so. Rather, the truth is this: Israel certainly does have an end and a conclusion in respect of themselves, but through Hashem they have continued existence, whereas in respect of themselves they have no such existence. And this fact — that Israel's continued existence comes only through Hashem — is indicated by the fact that the name "El" [God] stands at the end of the name "Yisrael": for at their end, which belongs to them in respect of themselves, Hashem grants them continued existence, but in respect of themselves, Israel does have an end. Therefore the lot fell on the twelfth month, the end of the months, for Israel does have an end in respect of themselves. And the wicked Haman, when the lot fell on the twelfth month, rejoiced, for he thought that since it fell on the twelfth month, this signified the end. But he did not know that although they do have an end in respect of themselves, their ultimate existence comes from Hashem. Whereas all the other nations have their existence in respect of themselves even more than Israel does, and they do not have existence through Hashem; therefore their end is that they cease to exist, while Israel continues to exist. This is why it is written, "they cast pur... from day to day and from month to month, to the twelfth, that is, the month of Adar" — since he cast the lot all the way through to the twelfth month, and it did not fall on the earlier months, but fell specifically on the month of Adar. Nevertheless, there is a difficulty: why did it not state explicitly that the lot fell on the twelfth month, that is, the month of Adar, rather than saying that he cast the lot from month to month — it should simply have said that the lot fell on the month of Adar. It appears that since the lot was not ultimately true — for there was, in fact, no substance to it according to Haman's intention; on the contrary, the lot turned against Haman himself — therefore it is not written explicitly that the lot fell on the twelfth month. For the truth is that the lot was not a wholly explicit proof; rather, it pointed both ways, without anything stated explicitly. And so they expounded explicitly in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:11): "they cast pur, that is, the lot" — meaning, the lot fell upon him, Haman. It appears that they expounded this way from the fact that it is written "they cast pur, that is, the lot," without stating that the lot fell on the twelfth month — meaning that it merely states that he cast the lot, but the falling itself came upon him. Nevertheless, one must say, as we have said, that the reason the lot was on the month of Adar, the end of the months, is that this signifies the end of Israel. And Haman did not know that Israel has an end for this very reason: that from the perspective of their end, Israel's continued existence comes from Hashem. For were this not so, there would be no substance to the lot at all — but there certainly is substance to it. Therefore their end is in the month of Adar, and the month of Adar is joined to the month of Nisan; for since their end is in the month of Adar, which is joined to the month of Nisan, this shows that there is no absolute end here, but rather that it returns to Hashem. Just as the beginning, the month of Nisan, is from Hashem, so too the end returns to Hashem, and this is their true existence. And indeed, Haman wanted to know, by means of the lot, which month was suited to be the end of Israel. And so the lot fell on the month of Adar, the last of the months, which is their own end. And it is indeed true that Israel has an end in respect of themselves, and this end in respect of themselves is in fact the very substance of their existence through Hashem — and this is their existence forever and ever. Therefore the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:11) says that the lot was upon him, Haman. And Scripture did not state explicitly that the lot fell on the twelfth month, since the lot turned around — so there is no real proof in this lot; therefore it does not say that the lot fell on the twelfth month. "They cast pur, that is, the lot." It was taught (Megillah 13b): once the lot fell in the month in which Moses our teacher died, Haman rejoiced. But he did not know that Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, died on the seventh of Adar, and that Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, was also born on the seventh of Adar — thus far the Talmud. The explanation is that everything has an appointed time. And when Haman cast lots to determine which time would be the end of Israel, and it fell on Adar, he rejoiced, because in this time Moses died — he who is the teacher of Israel and is regarded as the embodiment of all Israel. He therefore thought that this represented, as it were, the disappearance of all Israel, since he saw that Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, died in this month. And his view was that this month, the last and final of the months, likewise signified, Heaven forbid, the final end of Israel. And so the lot fell on this month, indicating that in this month is the end of Israel, and therefore Moses their teacher, who is regarded as the embodiment of Israel, died in it. But he did not know that Moses was also born on the seventh of Adar (Megillah 13b). The explanation of this is that a thing which is whole has its beginning and its end joined together as one. As you see with a sphere, which is round, whose end connects to its beginning, constituting complete wholeness. And so Moses said, "my days are full" (Rosh Hashanah 11a), for his years were complete and full, his days numbering one hundred and twenty, which in the reduced numerology is twelve — the same as the reduced numerology of the name "Moshe." This indicates that his days were entirely full and complete, since his years numbered the same as the numerology of his name. For one cannot say that his end signifies absence and deficiency merely because it is an end; on the contrary, it signifies completion, since his days were completed exactly, from day to day. This is nothing but completion, and the concept of "end" does not properly apply here; rather it signifies that his life was completed. And whatever is completed in this way belongs to Hashem, from whom it was created. And do not raise the difficulty of why this was not so for other righteous individuals. For we have already said that Moses was the embodiment of Israel, as stated, and a form is by definition complete, without addition or deficiency — this is a known matter. Therefore his days were complete, without addition or deficiency, since their end joined to their beginning, and his beginning came from Hashem, who created him, and so too his end, which joins to his beginning, belongs to Hashem. This is what occurs when the days are complete without addition and without deficiency, as was the case with Moses, whose days were complete — and by this the end joins to the beginning, and on account of this it is whole, and by virtue of this completion it belongs entirely to Hashem. It appears one may say that this is why the life of Moses was one hundred and twenty years: because the number one hundred and twenty, in reduced numerology, is twelve, and a sphere, which is whole, divides into twelve, corresponding to the twelve constellations in the firmament of the heavens. And the sphere is entirely whole, its end joined to its beginning, so as to say that there is no true end here. All of this signifies the wholeness of his days, and by virtue of this wholeness it belongs to Hashem. But had his death occurred in a different month, his death would have been merely a disappearance, not completion at all. Therefore, when Haman saw that the lot fell on this final month, he rejoiced, for he said that "the final" month signified that they, Israel, have a final end. And just as the exodus from Egypt was a beginning in the first month, so too their end would be in the final month. However, Haman's error was that he did not know that this end is in fact a completion, since the end is joined to the beginning, and a thing that is whole returns to Hashem. Just as the beginning came from Hashem — for in the month of Nisan, the beginning of Israel, Hashem brought them out of Egypt, so their beginning is from Hashem — so too their end is toward Hashem. Therefore it was fitting that their end be in the month of Adar, the end of the months, which is joined to the month of Nisan. This matter is entirely similar to the case of Moses: for even though Moses's death, considered in itself, was in the month of Adar, the end of the months, nevertheless, since he was also born in it, his days were in a state of completion, and there is no true end here, since the end is joined to the beginning, and from this aspect there is a return to Hashem, which constitutes eternal existence. So too with Israel: even though they have an end, this end is nothing but completion, and there is no true end here, since the end is connected to the beginning. This is what wholeness means, and this completion belongs to Hashem, and by virtue of Hashem they have eternal existence. All of this is hinted at in what they said (Megillah 13b): Haman did not know that Moses died in Adar and was born on the seventh of Adar. And once you understand these matters, you will be able to understand what our Sages, of blessed memory, said: "Even if all the festivals are annulled, the days of Purim will not be annulled." This is because all the festivals are a remembrance of the exodus from Egypt, and the exodus from Egypt is the beginning of Israel, and this is the very essence of Israel. Even though the beginning is from Hashem, nevertheless this matter is subject to cessation and annulment, for every created thing has, in respect of itself, the potential for annulment, whoever it may be. Therefore, since the festivals are a remembrance of the exodus from Egypt, and the exodus from Egypt is the beginning of Israel, and everything with a beginning has an end, there is the possibility of annulment for the festivals. But the days of Purim are not rooted in themselves, but rather in Hashem — inasmuch as He, may He be blessed, is the end and conclusion of Israel, for Israel belongs to Hashem. And a matter that comes from Hashem, and not from themselves, cannot possibly be subject to cessation at all. Therefore the days of Purim are in the final month. And because the days of Purim exist by virtue of the fact that Hashem is the embodiment of Israel, and not by virtue of themselves, they had no salvation at all except from Hashem. Therefore they said (Megillah 7b) that a person is obligated to become intoxicated on Purim until he cannot distinguish between "Cursed be Haman" and "Blessed be Mordechai." That is to say, when a person reaches this measure, he has no help whatsoever, for he knows nothing and has no capability of his own. So too Israel at that time: their help and salvation was not anything from themselves at all; rather, this salvation came entirely from Hashem, and they were like a person who knows nothing, who has no salvation from himself at all. Such is the explanation of this. And although this matter has already been explained above as well, it is all, indeed, one true and correct root. And it will be further explained at the end of the Megillah, on the verse (below 9:30), "words of peace and truth." And likewise, according to the opinion that Yom Kippur too will not be annulled — for Yom Kippur too exists by virtue of Hashem. This is what our Sages, of blessed memory, hinted at in the Gemara (Yoma 85b): "Happy are you, Israel — before whom are you purified, and who purifies you? The Holy One, blessed be He, purifies you, as it is said (Jeremiah 17:13), 'Hashem is the hope of Israel.'" Therefore Yom Kippur, too, is not annulled, and this has already been explained above. And all these matters that we have said were hinted at by the Sages in Genesis Rabbah, in Parashat Emor (Vayikra Rabbah 29:2): Rabbi Berechiah said in the name of Rabbi Meir — this teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Jacob our father the guardian prince of Babylon ascending and descending, that of Greece ascending and descending, and that of Media ascending and descending. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Jacob: "Jacob, you too, ascend." At that moment Jacob our father became afraid and said, "Perhaps, just as these have a descent, so will I." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: "Do not fear, Israel; if you ascend, you will have no descent." But he did not believe, and did not ascend. "Yet despite all this they sinned against Him, and did not believe in all His wonders" (cf. Psalms 78:32) — this refers to Jacob our father, who did not believe and did not ascend. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: "Had you believed and ascended, you would never have had a descent. Now that you did not believe and did not ascend, your children will be subjugated by four kingdoms in this world, through taxes and tributes, through forced labor and head-taxes." One might think this would be forever — Scripture therefore states (Jeremiah 30:10), "Fear not, Israel, for I will save you from afar, and your seed from the land of their captivity" — from Gaul and Spain and their associated lands. "And Jacob shall return" (ibid.) — from Babylon; "and be quiet" (ibid.) — from Media; "and be at ease" (ibid.) — from Greece; "with none to make him afraid" (ibid.) — from Edom. "For I will make a full end of all the nations to which I have driven you, but I will not make a full end of you" (ibid., v. 11) — the nations of the world, who reap their fields completely, I will make a full end of them; but Israel, who do not reap their fields completely, as it says (Leviticus 23:22), "You shall not wholly reap the corner of your field" — "but I will chastise you in measure" (Jeremiah 30:11), with afflictions in this world, in order to cleanse you for the World to Come — thus far the Midrash. And these matters are very profound, once you understand what we have explained above. For Israel's end and conclusion is toward Hashem, and therefore Hashem commanded Israel this commandment (Leviticus 23:22), "You shall not wholly reap the corner of your field," and commanded that the corner be given to the poor (ibid.). And in the Midrash (Torat Kohanim, ibid.): whoever gives gifts to the poor is as though he had built an altar and offered a sacrifice upon it. We have explained this matter in Parashat Emor, in the work Gur Aryeh (Leviticus 23, note 24), that whoever gives gifts to the poor specifically — it is as though he gave them to Hashem. This shows you that Israel gives their "end" to Hashem, for He, may He be blessed, is their end and purpose. This is why He commanded, "You shall not wholly reap the corner of your field," but rather leave it for the poor. For if you were to wholly reap the corner of your field, it would be as though your "end" were not directed toward Hashem, and everything that ends in itself merely has an end. But Israel's end is toward Hashem, and therefore He, may He be blessed, grants eternal existence to Israel. And this is why it says that the nations reap their fields completely — it signifies that their "end" belongs to themselves, and therefore they have a limit and an end. But Israel, who do not reap their fields completely, this signifies that their "end" does not belong to themselves, but rather to Hashem. Therefore the nations have a limit and an end, but Israel, who do not reap their fields completely — for they give the corner to Hashem, that is, to the poor, which is regarded as though they had given it to Hashem, and the corner [peah] is the end and conclusion of the field — for this reason their "end" belongs to Hashem. And do not say that these matters are stated merely as a rhetorical expansion; rather, they are stated with the most profound wisdom, for the end and conclusion of Israel is toward Hashem, since He, may He be blessed, is the ultimate, final form of Israel — just as this is indicated by the name "Yisrael," which seals with the Divine name "El" at its end, because He, may He be blessed, is the final form for Israel, and by this He, may He be blessed, sustains them with eternal existence. And Scripture hinted at this matter in what it said, "You shall not wholly reap the corner of your field, etc.," as has been explained. And Jacob, when he saw the ascents of the four kingdoms — this ascent was merely the beginning of an ascent, and every beginning has an end. Therefore Jacob did not wish to ascend, for he reasoned that if he too were to have a beginning of an ascent, this matter would likewise have an end for him. But Hashem said that he should ascend, because his ascent is toward Hashem — that whenever Jacob rises in the world, this comes from Hashem, and He, may He be blessed, grants him permanent existence. This is the difference between Israel and the nations: when the nations experience an ascent, they become haughty and cast off the yoke of Heaven, and their ascent is not toward Hashem, but rather they distance themselves from Hashem — and therefore their ascent is in fact their descent. But Israel, whenever they ascend, their ascent is toward Hashem, for they attribute the greatness to Hashem. And so they said in the Midrash. Therefore Hashem said to Jacob, "You too, ascend." And Jacob, because he did not believe that his descendants would be such that whenever they ascended they would attribute everything to Hashem, therefore did not ascend. And so they said in the chapter "Kisui ha-Dam" (Chullin 89a) regarding the verse (Deuteronomy 7:7), "It is not because you are more numerous than any people that Hashem desired you, for you are the fewest of all peoples." And therefore it says, "Had you believed and ascended, you would not have descended, etc." Therefore, Haman's lot is not a false lot, for the end and conclusion of Israel themselves is, in truth, in the month of Adar — just as their beginning was in the month of Nisan, so in the month of Adar is the end of Israel themselves. But their ultimate end is toward Hashem, who is regarded as a transcendent form (tzurah nivdelet), and is the final form for Israel, and He establishes and sustains Israel. This matter will be further explained at length. "They cast pur, that is, the lot, etc." Haman himself did not cast the lot, because it is possible that he did not know how to perform the casting of lots, since understanding is required for how this is done, and Haman did not know how it was done; therefore Haman himself did not perform it. Furthermore, since he was the party personally concerned in the matter, the lot would show him whatever he wanted to see — for such is the nature of divination, that it shows the interested party whatever he wants. Therefore the lot was performed by someone else, who had no personal stake in the matter, so as to arrive at the clear truth.

And [they do not abide by] his majesty’s bylaws. To pay taxes for the king’s work. Has nothing to gain. There is no apprehension; i.e., there is no profit by letting the Jews live.

"scattered and dispersed among the peoples" — that a man is separated from his brother; so wholly evil is this [conduct]. And it is not enough that their laws are different, but also they do not keep the laws and statutes that the king commands — and behold, every [other] nation keeps them, except for them. "it does not profit [the king]" (ein shaveh) — [meaning] it is not a proper thing, or [alternatively,] it means there is no benefit [to the king in tolerating them].

Behold, it was possible that the king would refuse to listen to him [Haman], for [several] reasons: First, because perhaps, aside from the people he sought to destroy, other peoples who had intermarried with them, or who were close to them, would come to their aid. Second, lest that people itself rise up to defend its life and cause many casualties to fall from among the people of the king's provinces, and even if [the king's people] ultimately prevailed, it would not be worthwhile for the king that many corpses of the dead should fall from among his own people before they could destroy them. Third, lest a bald patch [i.e., a depopulated gap] be made in his kingdom. Fourth, lest the king be blamed in the eyes of all the peoples for destroying a single people though there is no violence in their hands, and every people would tremble lest such a thing happen to it as well. Fifth, regarding the loss of the tax revenue that this would cost the king. Therefore he opened by saying, "there is a certain people," etc. — meaning, regarding the first reason: there is no fear that the other peoples who are close to them or who intermarried with them would rise up on their behalf, for they are "one people" (am echad), that is, not intermingled with any peoples besides themselves. And this is [the meaning of] "yeshno" ("there is"/"exists") — that is: even though the seventy nations that were in the world have all become intermingled, so that they are no longer called by the names of separate nations — only a very small remnant remaining, with the others having intermingled among them and become nullified within them, so that there is no nation or tongue of which we could say it is unmixed with another — this people is not so. For even though among the other [nations] there is no people that can be called "one," unmixed with another, [yet] "there is" one people that is the exception to the rule, that can be called "one," meaning that no other people is intermingled within it. Therefore he said "yeshno" ("there is"), meaning: do not let it enter your mind that there is no people that could be called "one," unmixed — for such a people does exist in reality, in such a way that no fear need enter our minds regarding the other peoples who intermarried with them. And also, regarding the second reason — that they should not rise up to defend their lives, causing many casualties to fall among the king's people — even should the intent [to destroy them] be carried out, there is no fear, for behold, they are scattered through all the provinces, a little here and a little there, and in no single province are there many of them together who would set their minds to make an effort against those who seek their harm. Should you say, perhaps they would gather from all the provinces into one city and rise up there — we need not fear this either, for behold, they are dispersed, people of dispersion, not bound to one another. And please do not say that perhaps, out of fear of calamity, when the terror of death falls upon them, they would form bonds and gather to defend their lives — this too is not so, for they are not close to one another, since in every people they are but a minority, in such a way that, owing to these characteristics of theirs, they will not quickly break away from their places to gather together, all of them. And also do not fear making a bald patch in your kingdom, for they are [found] throughout all the provinces of your kingdom, and there is no province that is [entirely] theirs — as our Rabbis of blessed memory said regarding this. And regarding the fourth [reason] — lest the king be blamed in the eyes of the peoples for putting to death a great people who are not deserving of death, [with people asking] why should they be put to death, what have they done? — see, indeed see, that "their laws are different from every people," etc. And this is [to be understood as follows]: if you find a nation that does not conduct itself according to the laws of the king who rules over it — if the law of that nation and its statutes are proper and close to reason, it will not be blamed for choosing its own laws and rejecting the laws of the king its ruler. But if their law is strange and different from all [other] laws, then they will be blamed for not observing the king's laws. And this is Haman's point in saying "and their laws are different," etc., "and they do not observe the king's laws," etc. — meaning: behold, their laws are different and foreign from every [other] people, not close to reason, and nevertheless "they do not observe the king's laws." Therefore the king will not be blamed among the peoples for making an end of such a people, and all the more so the peoples' compassion will not be stirred to [spare them from] destruction or to intercede on their behalf, for behold, their laws are different from every [other] people, and there is no hatred like the hatred of [a different] religion, and since their destruction is on this account, they [the other nations] too will hate them. For all the [other] peoples, even though each walks in the name of its own god, draw close to one another through their bread, their wine, and the food of their tables — which is not so with Israel; therefore they are hated by the peoples. And regarding the fifth [reason], he was saying, as it were, "do not concern yourself" about the matter of the tax that would be attributed to the king by their destruction, for indeed it is not worthwhile for the king to leave them be, since he has no benefit in their remaining — for against the tax [revenue] there is a loss from them, since their way is to rebel and to harm kings, as they also wrote to Ahasuerus himself from the Land of Israel, to have him nullify the service of the Blessed One, and this was done through Haman — as our Rabbis of blessed memory recounted, and [as] the Targum, of blessed memory, [relates].

The Questions: Is it not astonishing how a ruler of peoples could agree to destroy an entire nation for no wrong done by their hand? And it is all the more astonishing if in truth he agreed to this out of his own wickedness — how then could he wonder afterward, saying, "Who is this, and where is he, whose heart filled him to do so?" — as though so great a deed were not even worth remembering, what he himself had wrought and done? And even if he had wickedly agreed to do this, why did he pour out his wrath upon Haman [alone]? And why was the Megillah allowed to be written at all in those days, in which the king is recorded for everlasting disgrace? Also, in Haman's slander the Jews are not mentioned by name, only "there is a certain people"; and destruction is not mentioned, only "to cause them to perish." And what is [the meaning of] the doubling, "scattered and dispersed"? And why does it say "and their laws," in the plural, and why did it not say [their law is] "different from every people's law," since a religion differs from another religion, not from another people? "And Haman said" — This explains that Haman deceived Ahasuerus's heart in two matters. One: that he did not tell him who this people was that he was slandering, for had Ahasuerus known that they were the Jews, who were renowned as a wise and understanding people, he would not have listened to his counsel; and likewise, even regarding any other people, however low and despised, had Haman told him that his intent was to destroy them, he also would not have listened to him. But Haman, in his cunning, said "there is a certain people" — an unrenowned people, to the point that he could not even call it by name. And since he wished to slander them as harmful to the peoples in general, whether in their faith or in their political conduct — and it is known that if a people dwells alone in its own separate province, even were they the very worst, they would not harm other peoples dwelling in other provinces; and likewise, even if they dwell among other peoples within their provinces, if at least in every province where they dwell they have their own separate towns, their dwelling there also causes no harm, and the king would have no reason to be concerned to destroy them — therefore he prefaced by saying that it is a scattered people, to exclude the possibility that they have a separate province of their own; and also dispersed, to exclude that even in the provinces where they dwell they reside in separate towns, [saying] rather that they are dispersed and found in every single locality, and not merely in some provinces, but among all the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom — such that the harm resulting from them encompasses all the peoples. Now he began to relate the two general harms that follow from them: 1. In matters of faith, for "their laws are different from every people," and in this he included three things: (a) that the Jewish religion differs from the other religions; (b) that although every religion is necessarily different from another, nevertheless it differs only in its principles and roots, while in its particulars they converge and share in common — but in the Jewish religion there are found within it various laws and many distinct commandments, to the point that it is reckoned as many religions, and all these separate religions differ from all the religions of the [other] peoples, and do not resemble them in anything; (c) that not only is the Jewish religion different from the religions of the [other] peoples, but they [the Jews] themselves are also different from all the [other] peoples, for their religion sets them apart from the [other] peoples in their food, their dress, and their conduct, so that through their religion they are different even in ordinary human life from every people. And regarding civil association he says, "neither do they keep the king's laws" — that even in a matter that is not against their religion, but merely a matter of money, they do not observe the king's law, and from them all the [other] peoples learn to rebel against the king and his officers. And after he had reckoned the great loss that comes about through them, lest one think that you have some benefit from them for whose sake you would leave them be, he said in general, "and it does not profit the king [to tolerate them]" — that you have no benefit that would outweigh the harm you would find in leaving them be.

"There is a certain people, scattered and dispersed, etc." (verse 8). He said "one people" (am echad), when he only needed to say "there is a people, scattered and dispersed" — because Haman came to tell Ahasuerus that it is precisely because Israel is "one people" that they are scattered among all the peoples and divided from all the peoples; for if this were not so, they would not be "one." And since they are separate from all the peoples, why should he leave them be, given that they are separate from everything? He hinted at something further in saying "one people": since they are "one people," it would be fitting for them to be joined together more than other peoples, yet they are scattered among the peoples — and this is a loss and a defect for them, and therefore they deserve to be destroyed entirely. Their defect stems from two things: [first,] "there is a people" (am) — and since they are a people, it would be fitting that they also be together with one another, as every people is together, but these are scattered. And corresponding to their being "one," he said "and dispersed among the peoples" — meaning they are not one. "And their laws differ from every people" — this is the third [defect]: that they have statutes which have no reason or comprehension, like all the statutes of the Torah, and they are not like a civil law (dat nimusit), which is an ordinance of the king meant to sustain the unity of the state — and this ordinance they do not follow. Therefore he said "and it does not profit the king to leave them be," for the king is the one who orders the people, and they do not follow this order, that is, the king's law in the civil statutes that the king has arranged, which is the ordering of the state. But these have no order at all; rather they are defective in three respects: the first, that they are a "people" (am), yet they are dispersed and not together; the second, that they are "one" (echad), yet they are dispersed and divided; and the third, that "their laws differ from every people," and they have no civil law that orders the state. Therefore they are defective, and what is defective deserves to be destroyed entirely before it goes on to cause further damage. And as to why he said "yeshno" ["there exists"] and not "yesh am" ["there is a people"] — it appears he came to exclude [the possibility] that one might find another nation like this one that departs from the order of the other peoples. For if there were another such nation, one would have to leave this one be as well, since another like it exists — and to destroy all the nations is not something one may do. It may also be explained that he said "yeshno am" for this reason: Haman meant to say that this nation is a unique nation (umah yechidah), and so long as it is unique, no one has power over it, for when it stands by itself its strength is great. And Balaam said (Numbers 23:9), "Behold, a people that dwells alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations." And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, part 1, remez 768) [it is taught] that Israel is like the word "hen" ["behold"], for these two letters — the heh and the nun — each stand alone, having no combination with the other letters. For the letter alef has a combination with the letter tet, [together] making ten, since ten is the comprehensive number, joined together; and so too bet and chet, gimel and zayin, dalet and vav — all of these combine to [make] ten, which is a unified number — except for the heh. And likewise, among the tens, they combine to [make] a hundred: yod with the number of tzadi, [together making] a hundred; kaf combines with the number of pe, [making] a hundred; likewise lamed with ayin, [making] a hundred; likewise samekh with mem, [making] a hundred together. But the nun has no combination or joining. Therefore [Scripture] says "hen, a people that dwells alone," meaning that Israel is like the word "hen," which stands alone, for these two letters, the heh and the nun, have no combination. And when Israel is like this — having no combination with another nation — then their strength is very great. Therefore it says afterward (Numbers 23:24), "Behold, a people that rises up as a lioness, and lifts itself up as a lion; it shall not lie down until it eats the prey, and drinks the blood of the slain." And Haman said: but now Israel has departed from this, for they are scattered and dispersed among the peoples, and so they have some connection to the nations, since they are among them. And certainly, had they not been scattered among them, they would have remained a unique nation, with no connection to the nations. But since they are scattered and dispersed among the peoples, they have some connection to the nations. Therefore they are no longer like "hen," which stands alone; rather, they are [numerically] one greater — that is, [the word] "nu," which comes out of the word "hen" — ["hen"] indicating that they were a unique nation by themselves; and now "yeshno," meaning that they are [like] "nu," for "nu" [in number] is one greater [than "hen"], and by this they have departed from [the state of] "hen." And when Israel departs [from its uniqueness] even in some small matter, and has some connection to the nations, then they have no strength and are not reckoned [with] at all. Therefore, since their God had scattered them, they had departed from that which was their strength and their preservation, and it is as if — heaven forfend — their God wishes that they be destroyed; and therefore the king need not spare them, since this would be as if he wished to act in parallel with their own God Himself. And certainly Haman erred, for the opposite of what he thought is true. On the contrary — when they are scattered and dispersed among the peoples, and nevertheless have no connection with the nations in their food and their drink, and also in their garments, by this it is shown that they are a unique nation, separate from the nations, and that they have [enduring] existence. Therefore, that they derived enjoyment from Ahasuerus's feast was a great cause of the calamity, since by enjoying his feast they joined themselves to the nations. Therefore, happy are we, and how pleasant is our portion, if the people of our exile would be careful and would separate themselves from the nations in every way that separation is proper for us — in [refraining from] drinking wine of libation, and other forms of joining together, in revealing the secrets of Israel to the nations — and how much more so from speaking slander (lashon hara) about Israel against the nations. And Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, when he saw that there were informers (delatorin) among Israel [reporting] to the nations against their brothers Israel, Moses said (Exodus 2:14), "Surely (akhen) the matter is known." And the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 1:30) explained this to teach that Moses had been pondering what [reason] the Holy One, blessed be He, had seen to subjugate Israel more than all the nations — until he saw that there were informers among them; and this is [the meaning of] what he said, "Surely the matter is known" — he was expressing astonishment and said "akhen" (surely). For the alef is one, corresponding to the nation of Israel, who are one, and "khen" is the nations. And behold, the alef joins with "khen," which [represents] the seventy nations; therefore the matter [became] known as to why they are in this great subjugation. And let this not seem difficult — that because there was found one wicked man who was an informer, this should be a corruption and defect affecting all of Israel — for this is not difficult. For anything that needs to be separate must be completely separated and set apart; and if it joins in one place entirely, then it becomes joined to it and becomes one [with it]. And if you have before you two trees, separate from one another, [yet] if they touch by one small branch, the two trees become as one through the joining of one small branch. Therefore, connection to the nations through one small branch — that is, one man — is considered a connection of [all] Israel to the nations, just as Moses hinted by forming one word that corresponds to Israel [the alef] and likewise to the seventy nations that are [represented by] "khen," saying "akhen, the matter is known." And in the Gemara (Megillah 13b): "And Haman said to king Ahasuerus, there is a certain people" — Rava said, there was no one who knew how to speak evil (lashon hara) like Haman. He said to him [Ahasuerus]: come, let us provoke them. He [Ahasuerus] said to him: I am afraid, for whoever provokes their God, He exacts judgment from him. He [Haman] said to him: they have grown lax in the commandments. He [Ahasuerus] said to him: there are sages among them who will seek mercy for them. He [Haman] said to him: "one people" they indeed are. And lest you say [this is like] the matter of an isolated patch (korchah) within the kingdom [i.e., that they are concentrated in one area] — [Scripture says] "scattered and dispersed": they are scattered among the peoples. And lest you say there is one province that is entirely theirs — [Scripture says] "among the peoples" [i.e., intermingled]. Or lest you say they are outside the kingdom, and so you cannot [reach] them — Scripture teaches, "in all the provinces of your kingdom." "And their laws differ from every people" — for they do not eat with us, and do not drink with us, and do not intermarry with us. "And they do not keep the king's laws" — for they while away the year with Sabbaths and Festivals, and do not pay the king's tax (karga). "And it does not profit the king to leave them be" — for they eat and drink and become merry, and go out and sit in the marketplace and disparage the king. Another interpretation: "and it does not profit the king to leave them be" — for if a fly falls into the cup of one of them, he throws it out and drinks [the wine]; but if my lord the king touches the cup of one of them, he dashes it on the ground and does not drink it. [Thus far the Gemara.] He mentioned ten things that Haman said about them as slander (lashon hara), for in ten things they differ from every people, and since they differ from every people in ten things, the difference is total in every respect, for ten is the comprehensive number, and so the difference is total, [encompassing] everything. "Yeshno" ["there exists"] is one; "one people" is two; "scattered" is three; "and dispersed" is four; "among the peoples" is five; "in all the provinces of your kingdom" is six; "and their laws differ from every people" is seven; "and they do not observe the king's laws" is eight; "and it does not profit the king to leave them be" is nine. And even though no [distinct] matter was stated in what is said, "and it does not profit the king to leave them be," nevertheless, since it is worded "and it is not fitting for the king to leave them be," we derive from this that it is a matter in its own right — that it is not fitting for the king to leave them be [thereby completing the count to ten]. And it says, "for they eat and drink and become merry, and go out and sit in the marketplace and disparage the king" (Megillah 13b). For if they had disparaged the king while they were in distress, [that would be understandable, since] a person does many things out of distress; but they eat and drink and go out and disparage the king [even though not in distress]. And this is counted as two [things], for when they do this to the king, this is certainly also a disgrace to all the nations — so this is two: [a disgrace] to the king, and [a disgrace] to all the nations. And it further says, "another interpretation, etc." — even if these are not two but only one thing, there is yet another thing that they do, on account of which it does not profit the king to leave them be — and so these are the ten things, including "if a fly falls [into the cup], etc." And although [the decree] concerning their bread and their oil derives from the eighteen decrees (Shabbat 13b), and we say in Avodah Zarah (36a) that Daniel decreed [this] and they did not accept it from him at first — in the end, many did refrain from their bread and their wine, only the decree did not spread throughout all of Israel. And as for their homiletical reading of "yeshno" as [meaning] that they have grown lax (yeshenim, "asleep") regarding the commandments (Megillah 13b) — it appears that the primary basis of this derash is not that the word "yeshno" should be read as a term of sleep (yashen), but rather that the phrase "yeshno am" ["there exists a people"] itself implies this — meaning that they are nothing but "a people" (am), and the commandments do not derive from their being "a people," but rather the commandments derive from the name "Yisrael." For indeed, all the other nations, insofar as they are "a people," have no commandments. Therefore he said that these too are [merely] "yeshno am" — [existing] only [as] a people, like every other people, which are called only "a people," since they do not perform the divine commandments. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:12), they interpreted "yeshno" as referring to the Holy One, blessed be He — that He is, as it were, "asleep" toward His people and does not help them — the opposite of what is said (Psalms 121:4), "Behold, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps." And the Holy One, blessed be He, answered him [Haman]: you speak of [Me] before sleep; I will arouse Myself against you like one who is asleep, as it is said (Psalms 78:65), "And Hashem awoke as one out of sleep." The meaning is that when one is aroused out of sleep, one is aroused with great force; so too Hashem, blessed be He, will be aroused against them with great force to destroy them. And according to what they explained (Megillah 13b) [regarding] "and they do not keep the king's laws" — that they while away the entire year with Sabbaths and Festivals — indeed this is difficult: how could it be that they do not fulfill the king's decree? But this is not difficult, for the decree [of the king] is only to perform labor for the king's need, and since they have a Sabbath or a Pesach [on which they may not work], one cannot compel them to labor, and so they while away the whole year in this manner. And know that there is an order (seder) to these things, that each one is greater than what preceded it, until the last, "that they disparage the king." And furthermore, "that if a fly falls into the cup of one of them, he throws it out and drinks it, but if the king touches the cup of one of them, he dashes the cup upon the ground" — and every single one of them does this, and therefore this is greater than what was said, "and they go out to the marketplace and disparage the king," for that is not something everyone does, but this [the matter of the cup] is something all of them do. And Rashi explained that what they said, "and they disparage the king," [means] that they say (Psalms 10:16), "Hashem is King forever and ever; the nations are perished out of His land" — and they do not even call you "king," only "the nations." But this explanation does not seem right, for what does this have to do with what was said, "that they drink and become merry, etc."? Rather, its meaning is: that they drink, and from this — since when wine enters, the secret comes out (Eruvin 65a) — what is in their hearts against you [is revealed], since they are not adherents of your religion. And therefore, when they drink and become merry, they go out to the marketplace and tell one another things, and disparage you, saying that this is not a proper kingdom. Even though in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:13) it says that they disparage the king and say, "Hashem is King; the nations are perished out of His land," in the Gemara (Megillah 13b), where it says that they disparage the king, its meaning is this: that out of their being merry [with wine], they let out what is in their hearts and say that in the end the nations will perish from His land, for Hashem will reign over His people. "There is a certain people, scattered." One may ask: why did he say "there is a certain people" [without naming them], and why did he not mention their name, saying "there is a certain people, the Jews"? This is not difficult, for he meant to say that because they are scattered and dispersed, they are not fitting to have a specific name. For every nation, because its members are together, has a name; but this nation, being dispersed and scattered, is not fitting to have [such] a name, for every nation [only] has a proper name [when its members are united].

Let it be inscribed that they are to be exterminated. Let letters be written to be sent to the ministers of the provinces to destroy them. — Notes: (5) Haman had advised Achashveirosh to entice the Jews into behaving sinfully so that they would incur God’s wrath. Following Haman’s advice, Achashveirosh invited the Jews to the royal feast. Using his foresight, Mordechai them not to attend. However, many ignored his warning and joined in the drunken debauchery. The incriminating angel then argued that the Jews were worthy of destruction, and God agreed. (Esther Rabbah 7:13)

"and ten thousand talents of silver" — this is elliptical, and it [really] means "ten thousand thousand talents of silver," like "and the prophecy of Oded the prophet" (2 Chronicles 15:8) [where a word is likewise elided]. "the king's treasuries" (ginzei ha-melech) — [meaning] treasuries; and similar to it is "achar gizei ha-melech" (after the king's mowings) (Amos 7:1), where the nun is absorbed; and likewise "u-ve-ginzei" in similar instances.

Even though in his heart [Haman's intent] was "to annihilate" (le-hashmid), he did not let it come out of his mouth, except "to destroy them" (le'abbedam), because he was concerned lest the king refuse; therefore he chose a cunning wording, speaking in a vague, unformed language: "let it be written to destroy them" — which can be interpreted either as taking their spoil and plunder while sparing their lives, or as destroying them from the world. And he took hold of this wording so that he could watch and see what was in the king's heart and what arose in his mind — for even if the king understood it [merely] as the loss of money, he [Haman] would sweeten the matter in his letters into the destruction of souls; or he would exert himself with all his strength, "line upon line, precept upon precept," until [the king] would come around and agree to his intent. And with this, the wording of the king's reply is borne out, in saying, "and the people, to do with them as seems good in your eyes" — meaning: I have seen that your words are ambiguous, bearing two understandings, since you yourself were uncertain of my intent; but behold, I hereby permit you to do with them as seems good in your eyes, according to whichever interpretation seems right to you. And when he [Haman] saw that the matter was left to him to determine the wording, which he would clarify and order to be written, he then decided and said "to annihilate," etc. And this is why the verse attributes the matter to Haman's order, saying, "and it was written according to all that Haman commanded." And as for his saying, "I will weigh out [the silver] into the hands of those who have the charge of the king's business," it appears from the Gemara that these are the ones who make the work of gold and silver coins. And the intent of the verse will be [understood] when we consider the statement "to bring [it into the king's treasuries]," etc. — for why would the advisor to the king need to explain what would be done with the silver? Give it to him, [one might say,] and he will explain that he should give it to the king, who will do as he wishes with it. But I think, rather, that there are coins specifically designated to be placed for safekeeping in the king's treasury-house, and these are the larger ones, made of the finest, purest silver; and beneath them are those given out for circulation. And he said: behold, he would give ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who have the charge of the king's business, to mint coins fit to be brought into the king's treasuries, for the silver would be very good, fit for this purpose.

The Questions: It is very astonishing — are the workers who do the labor the ones appointed over the king's treasures and treasuries? Should it not rather be weighed out by the hand of the stewards? Also, is it conceivable that a king would sell a people and the lives of its members for a price? Nothing like this has been heard of in all the chronicles of former times. And if they were condemned to be destroyed, why would he take money as their price? "If [it please the king]" — this is the second matter by which he deceived his heart: that he did not tell him that he wanted to destroy them, but only "to cause them to perish," whose plain meaning is to destroy the form of the nation, which is their religion — to nullify their religion and force them to keep the religions of the other peoples, or other similar matters of this kind, that they should devise schemes to put an end to that people's affairs, their statutes, and their customs; Ahasuerus did not intend at all [to bring about] killing and the loss of life. And [as for] "ten thousand [talents]" — he said this so that [Ahasuerus] should not think that he would need to lay out a great expense for this and maintain officials appointed over it, and wise-hearted men who would be diligent in this work of turning them from their religion — for the doers of this work, who are those who would seduce them [from their faith], would do it so gladly that they would even weigh out silver for it themselves. Let us understand the verse to mean: through the doers of this work — ("I shall have it in my power") — to weigh out ten thousand talents of silver into the king's treasuries, for they [the doers of the work] would weigh out silver in order to be allowed to do this work, which would be reckoned in their eyes as wages and good fortune. And by this he deceived the king, [suggesting] that all the peoples would rejoice at this, at bringing those who had strayed back to the right way.

"If it please the king, etc." (verse 9) — He should have said "let it be given to destroy them," so why did he say "let it be written to destroy them"? But the explanation is this: Haman thought that the king would not listen to him about destroying an entire nation, just as the court of Israel was afraid and did not want to give advice to kill Vashti, lest he change his mind (Megillah 12b). Therefore he said that in any case let it be written to destroy them, and he would hold this document back for some time — so that if he changed his mind he would not send it, but it would only be written, ready for him whenever he wished to send it. But Ahasuerus, when he saw Haman's wish, said (below, verse 13) "and letters shall be sent by the hand of the couriers," that they be sent at once. And so "ve-nishloach" implies the passive form derived from "the sender" — it will run in haste and there will be no delay, only running. "And ten thousand talents of silver, etc." — Its meaning, according to the plain sense, is: since he sought to destroy all of Israel, an entire nation, he offered for them a complete, general sum of money. For ten is a general, complete number, as is known. And the proof of this is that after ten one returns to count "eleven," just as at first one counted "one, two" — from this you see that when one reaches ten, the number is complete. And one could not say ten talents alone, for Israel is an entire nation, and therefore it is fitting that it be ten thousand talents of silver. And "a thousand" stands in place of "one," for it is a thousand [unit]. Therefore ten thousand is reckoned like ten, since one could not give ten talents of silver for an entire nation. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:19) it is said that he gave him ten thousand talents of silver for this reason: because when Israel went out of Egypt they numbered six hundred thousand (Exodus 12:37). And it says that for each and every one he would give a hundred zuz, which are fifty shekels (there, in the Midrash). And this is because Israel, insofar as they are one nation, are properly reckoned at six hundred thousand, as we have explained elsewhere. And the proof of this is that this is how Israel was numbered at the first count when they went out of Egypt (Exodus 12:37), and so they were in the portion of Pinchas (Numbers 26:51), after forty years (Rashi ad loc., verse 1) — only a small amount had been added to them, as we have explained this matter at length in its place. Therefore he gave him money until it reached, for each one, fifty shekels, that is, six hundred thousand [such shares]. And if there are more than that among them, this is merely an addition, and one should not reckon more than six hundred thousand, which is the [essential] number of Israel. For six hundred thousand half-shekels amount to a hundred talents, as is explained in the portion of Pekudei (Exodus 38:25-27), and a hundred half-shekels are fifty whole shekels. For fifty shekels is the highest valuation, as is stated in the portion of Bechukotai (Leviticus 27:3), and this is the valuation of one man of Israel. Thus it comes out that ten thousand talents of silver is the valuation of six hundred thousand, the [essential] number of all Israel. And if the number of Israel is greater than that, it is only an addition. And Haman wanted to destroy the essence of Israel, and of itself the addition is nullified. And in the Gemara (Megillah 13b): "'If it please the king, let it be written to destroy them'" — Reish Lakish said: It was revealed and known before Him who spoke and the world came into being that the wicked Haman was destined to weigh out shekels against Israel; therefore He brought their shekels forward before the shekels of Haman. And this is what we learned (Shekalim 1:1): "On the first of Adar they make announcement concerning the shekels and concerning kilayim [mixed seeds]." The explanation of this is: the shekels that Israel gives are for the purpose of the offerings, since the offerings are brought from them. And it has already been explained above that the offerings are as if one offered oneself to Hashem, and this has been explained in several places. Therefore the giving of the shekels is as if one gave oneself to Hashem, and then Israel belongs to Hashem entirely — so how could they be handed over to Haman, since they are already given over to Hashem? And He brought their shekels forward before the shekels of Haman, who was giving shekels on their account to the king in order to purchase them; and this would not have availed, since they already belonged to Hashem entirely through the giving of the shekels. And because Israel was under Ahasuerus, and Haman purchased them from Ahasuerus, and this acquisition would, Heaven forbid, have destroyed them entirely — therefore Hashem brought their shekels forward before the shekels of Haman, for through this it became known that Israel belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He, and therefore Haman could not purchase them. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said (Megillah 14a): To what may the parable of Haman and Ahasuerus be compared? To two men, one of whom has a mound in his field, and the other has a ditch in his field. The owner of the mound said to the owner of the ditch, "Would that this ditch of yours were in my field!" In time they came together, and the owner of the ditch said to him, "Sell me the mound." The owner of the mound said to him, "Take it for free" — thus far [the citation]. The explanation is: Ahasuerus was opposed to Israel, just as are the rest of the four kingdoms, which are opposed to Israel. And for this reason Israel is comparable, with respect to Ahasuerus, to a mound that a person has within his field — for the mound is something extra that does not truly belong to him, just as Israel does not belong to the kingdom of the nations; therefore Israel is comparable, with respect to Ahasuerus, to a mound that is within the field. And this is because he is a king, under whom everything stands — and especially a kingdom such as that of Ahasuerus, who reigned over the whole world (Megillah 11a) — for the kingship comes to him from Hashem, so that reason does not allow that the destruction of the nation of Israel should come from him, since a king exists to sustain everything; therefore it is not fitting for a king to destroy them. But Haman sought to remove them from the domain of Ahasuerus, as Scripture says (Psalms 124:2), "If not for Hashem, who was for us when men rose up against us" — and not "a king." For a king exists to sustain existence, and destruction does not come from the side of a king. This is not so with a [mere] man, for man, on the contrary, wishes to destroy the other, as we have written above. And with regard to Ahasuerus, [the parable] called Israel a "mound," for the mound does not harm the owner of the field, but is only something extra, standing opposite the owner of the field. But the ditch is the pit that is reckoned as a lack, for indeed a pit is something deficient. Therefore, with regard to Haman, Israel was reckoned as a pit, for a pit has deficiency and lack in it. But with regard to Ahasuerus they were not reckoned as a pit, which has deficiency and lack in it; rather Israel was reckoned only as a mound, which is something extra. Therefore, Haman's shekels were meant to purchase Israel into his own domain from Ahasuerus, in order to remove them from beneath Ahasuerus's domain so that they would not be in the world. And had it not been for Israel's shekels, through which Israel enters entirely into [the domain of] Hashem when they give shekels to Him, as we have said, Heaven forbid Haman would have prevailed over Israel. But through the shekels Israel belongs to Hashem, as we wrote above regarding (above, 1:14) "and the ones close to him, etc." Therefore, after Israel gave their shekels to Hashem, they then became fit to cut off Amalek, who is opposed to Hashem. And this is why the portion of Shekalim (Exodus 30:11-16) is followed by the portion of Zachor (Deuteronomy 25:17-19), for through the portion of Shekalim — which Israel gives to the altar — they belong to Hashem, and through this they have power over the one who is opposed to them to destroy them, namely Amalek. And afterward comes the portion of Parah (Numbers 19:1-22), for there are two commandments: one is "You shall blot out the memory of Amalek" (Deuteronomy 25:19), and the portion of Parah, to remove the two adversaries of Israel — one on the side of the body, the second, the adversary on the side of the soul. For Amalek opposes Israel in order to destroy them and wipe them out from this world in their body, as we have written in the portion of Beshalach. And likewise his offspring, namely Haman, wished to destroy them physically. And since they had already brought forward the shekels — by which Israel belongs to Hashem — they had power over the adversary who opposed them physically, to blot out his name and eradicate them from the world. And the portion of Parah is the purification of the soul, for when impurity is upon a person, there is then a barrier between Hashem and that person, since one who is impure may not draw near to the camp of the Shechinah. And just as Hashem will, in the future, remove the power of Amalek, as it is written (Obadiah 1:21), "And saviors shall go up, etc.," and then Israel will have no adversary nullifying their perfection — for as long as the seed of Esau exists, there is a barrier between Hashem and Israel. And so they said in the Midrash (Tanchuma, Tetzei, end of section 11): "Your Teacher shall not hide Himself anymore" (Isaiah 30:20) — as long as the seed of Esau is in the world, there is a barrier between Israel and their Father in Heaven. And when the seed of Esau ceases from the world, it is said, "Your Teacher shall not hide Himself anymore" — that there will be no covering over the face of Hashem; and there is no need to elaborate here. So too, as long as the spirit of impurity is in the world, there is here a barrier between Israel and their Father in Heaven, until Hashem removes the spirit of impurity from the world, as it is written (Ezekiel 36:25), "And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean; from all your defilements and from all your idols I will cleanse you." And it is written (Zechariah 13:2), "And I will cause the spirit of impurity to pass away." And therefore, after the portion of Shekalim — by which Israel is given over to Hashem entirely, and they become fit to remove the power of Amalek, who wishes to destroy them in their bodies — Hashem also removes the spirit of impurity, which forms a barrier between Israel and their Father in Heaven on the side of the soul; and when these two are both removed from the world, then Hashem will give Israel a new heart and a new spirit, as it is written in the verse (Ezekiel 36:25), "And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean; from all your defilements and from all your idols I will cleanse you," and it is written after it (ibid., verse 26), "And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you." And for this reason, afterward comes the portion of HaChodesh, to bring offerings from a new contribution — and this is the drawing near and the bond to Hashem anew. And even though they had already given the shekels to Hashem, and by virtue of belonging to Hashem they thereby remove the power of Amalek, nevertheless, when they begin to offer from new shekels, this indicates that Israel belongs to Hashem anew, once the power of Amalek and the power of impurity are removed, and He gives them a new heart and a new spirit — and this is the portion of HaChodesh. Such is the matter of these four portions, and they are very deep matters.

The king removed his ring. This represents the granting of any great matter that is required of the king; that the one who has the ring on his hand is the ruler over all the king’s affairs. — Notes: (6) Otherwise why would the king present the ring to Haman who did not ask for it but rather requested to annihilate the Jews. The king’s removal of his ring was more effective than the forty-eight prophets sent by God to admonish the Jews. They were unable to convince them to repent, but the transfer of the ring to Haman resulted in repentance and three days of fasting. (Maseches Megillah 14a)

Behold, it is not the way of the seller to hand the item to the buyer; rather, it is the buyer who does the giving [of payment]. And the Sages, of blessed memory, were compelled to say that he [the king] did so in order to demonstrate the greatness of his desire to destroy Israel, God forbid — like the parable of the owner of the mound and the owner of the pit. And furthermore, [there is a difficulty in] that logically the king should first have responded to Haman's words by saying, 'the silver is given to you, etc.,' and only afterward, upon their reaching agreement, give him the ring. And furthermore, it would appear from the text that the sale was never actually consummated, for Haman sought to buy, and the king gave to him for nothing — and if so, how can Queen Esther say, 'for we are sold,' etc., when it was not so, but rather a gift? And furthermore, how could he say 'it is given to you,' as if he were giving something of his own, when it would have been more fitting for him to say, 'I will not take anything from you — the people are yours, to do with as you wish, etc.,' or, 'let what is yours remain yours, and the people, etc.'? And furthermore, there are among the Sages, of blessed memory, who said that 'we are sold' [alludes to being sold] on account of the sin of the sale of Joseph — but this does not appear to be so, except that [what it truly means is that] the sale was nullified. However, I say that the purchase and sale were carried out through a complete, formal kinyan (act of acquisition) in accordance with the law of the Torah. And this is [the explanation]: the silver that Haman said he would weigh out through the workmen was not minted coin, but rather pieces and scraps of silver, as the Sages, of blessed memory, said in the Gemara — that he would hand it over to those who make the coins [i.e., raw metal for the mint]. And it is known that scraps of silver are acquired through kinyan sudar (the formal act of acquisition performed by handing over a garment or utensil). Therefore, in order to effect the sale, the king drew his ring from his hand — which is a vessel fit to be used for such an acquisition — and gave it to Haman in order to acquire the silver — which was not minted coin, for it is only minted coin that cannot be acquired in this manner [via chalifin; scrap silver, by contrast, can be]. Once the silver was acquired [by the king] in this way, Haman gained ownership of his own exchange-token (namely, the ring itself) through this act of chalifin. And after the sale had been completed by this means, the king said to Haman: 'Behold, the silver is now mine, for I have acquired it, and now I give it to you as a gift, so that you may gain possession of it through your own domain' — and this is [the meaning of] 'the silver is given to you, and the people, to do with as you wish, etc.' And by this, Queen Esther was vindicated in saying 'for we are sold,' and all the objections we raised were likewise borne out together. And the king did this entire matter — selling and then giving as a gift — and did not say to him [Haman] at the outset, 'take them for yourself without silver and without price,' in order to display the power of the gift of his hand. For had he said at first, 'they are given — utterly given — to you, without payment,' it would have occurred to Haman's mind that the king was like one who gives away his field on account of its poor quality, and that Israel was in his eyes like a despised, shattered idol, scattered about; indeed, on the contrary, the king would then have to feel indebted to Haman for removing it from before him. Therefore, what did he do? He purchased the silver, so as to demonstrate to him that they [Israel] were worth the money he had pledged him; and afterward it would appear in Haman's eyes as though the king had given him, from his own [treasury], a gift of ten thousand talents of silver, by saying, 'the silver is given to you' — or, according to the Sages, of blessed memory, who said that they intended thereby to cancel out the ransom-money for the souls of Israel that they gave in the wilderness, giving a sum corresponding to it, that being the sum they wanted — in either case, [the king acted this way] in order to complete the matter and the acquisition in actual practice.

The Questions: Why does it recount that he gave the ring into Haman's hand, and why does it here specifically call him by his lineage and by the epithet "enemy of the Jews"? "And [the king] took off [his ring]" — Now it recounts that the king was not at all guilty in this matter, for since Haman had deceived his heart and had not told him who the people was, nor that his intent was to destroy them — had the king himself signed the letters, he would have seen that there was deceit in the matter and would not have agreed with him. But the king, out of his trust in him, handed the ring into his hand to sign in his name, and he [Haman] altered [the wording] and wrote of killing and cutting off. Therefore it says that the king was not the one responsible in this matter, but rather that Haman was the enemy of the Jews, and that he wrote everything of his own accord, on account of the hatred of his forefathers, which was preserved with him forever, since he was an Agagite.

"And the king took off his ring, etc." (verse 10) — He only needed to say (verse 11) "And the king said to Haman, the silver is given to you." Rather, [the verse] comes to tell us that he gave him the ring, and this indicates that this matter in particular he removed from himself and placed in [Haman's] hand, as if Haman were king in this matter, and not Ahasuerus — to the point that it was no longer in [the king's] power to retract it. This is what the ring indicates: that he removed it from his own hand and gave it, regarding this matter, to Haman. And in the Gemara (Megillah 14a), Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: Greater is the removal of the ring than the forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses who arose for Israel — for all of them did not bring [Israel] back to the good, whereas the removal of the ring brought them back to the good. [Thus far the Gemara.] One must ask: what is the reason for this? But the explanation is that the prophets prophesy concerning the rebuke from Hashem, [warning] that it should not come upon them. And because He, blessed be He, is merciful toward His creatures, [the people] are not so afraid [of these warnings]. But the removal of the ring indicates that the king removes this matter from himself and places it in the hand of man. And as long as it is in the king's hand — it has already been explained that He [Hashem] establishes kings, and because He, blessed be He, establishes kings, and they are like agents [sheluchim] of Hashem, they too do not desire to destroy everything entirely. But when it is handed over to an ordinary person, they [Israel] are afraid of him, as has been explained above.

"The silver is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it pleases you" — Now, the letters were written on the thirteenth of Nisan, and Haman was hanged in Nisan; and our Sages said that Mordecai fasted during the days of Pesach (Passover). And it is possible that the matter [of the decree] had not yet become known on the day the letters were written.

The Questions: As for what it says, "the silver is given to you" — it should have said, "let it be yours," for he did not actually give it to him, but only waived it in his favor. "And [the king] said" — he explains once more the innocence of the king, lest one think that he did this for the sake of the money. For on the contrary, in keeping with his thinking that Haman wanted to straighten out the people and destroy the evil of their religion and their character traits, he said to him that he would give him the money needed for the expense of this from his own treasuries, and he placed in his hand the money along with the people, to do with them what seemed good in his eyes, according to whatever right way he would find, to remove the stumbling-block that comes from the evil of their religion and their conduct, for their own good.

"Satraps" (achashdarpanim) — a Persian word of nine letters, and there is no [other] word of its letter-count in Scripture; and the view of those who say that it is [really] two words does not seem right to me. "The governors" (ha-pachot) — lacking the root letter tav; and the correct [view] is that the singular is "pechah" with a heh, as in "pachat Yehudah" ("the governor of Judah," Haggai 1:1) in construct; and the word "pachat" [in construct] is like [in] "lihyot pacham be-eretz Yehudah" ("to be their governor in the land of Judah," Nehemiah 5:14) — like [the illustration] "one who passes through the market beside a governor" — and the mem [in "pacham"] is the sign of the plural [possessive, "their"].

The calling [of the scribes] is not attributed to Haman, but rather is stated regarding the messengers/officers, for the urgency [of the matter] was between the king and Haman [alone]. The wording of the writing, however, was 'according to all that Haman commanded, to destroy, etc.,' and likewise when he proclaimed against Israel an appointed time of the thirteenth day of the twelfth month. Now, the Sages, of blessed memory, said that he chose Adar because Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, passed away in it. It is fitting to give a good reason for why he extended the date, for behold, Moses died on the seventh of Adar — why then did he push the date forward to the thirteenth of the month? But there is no doubt that he did this thing with cunning wisdom. For during the seven days of mourning for a righteous person, this world still benefits from his merit, inasmuch as his soul has not yet been fully divested and separated from this world — as we find that for the seven days [of mourning] for Methuselah, He, may He be blessed, delayed the Flood on account of his honor, as the Sages, of blessed memory, said regarding [the verse], 'And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth, etc.' (Genesis 7:10). And not only that, but the Holy One, blessed be He, illuminated the world all seven days of his [Methuselah's] mourning with the spiritual light that had been created on the first day of the six days of Creation, which He had hidden away for the righteous for the world to come — as the Sages, of blessed memory, [taught] regarding [the verse], 'and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, like the light of seven days' (Isaiah 30:26) — like the light of the seven days [of mourning] for Methuselah. The Sages, of blessed memory, further taught us concerning the seven days of mourning, that on the last day, part of it counts as the whole of it, and that this is because, through [the passing of] even part of that day, once the day begins, the righteous one becomes divested and separated from his attachment to this world. And therefore the wicked Haman schemed not to carry out the evil that he had devised against the Jews except at the completion of the seven days of weeping and mourning for Moses, so that his merit would not shield Israel during them. For behold, he [Moses] passed away on the seventh day of Adar, and the day of his passing is included in the reckoning of the seven; they were completed and fulfilled on the thirteenth, since part of a day counts as the whole of it. He did not delay it until the fourteenth, for his whole desire and wish was to shorten [the wait] as much as possible, and once he found a basis [to act] on the thirteenth, he saw no reason to delay further. And this is also why the scribes were summoned on the thirteenth of Nisan and not earlier — possibly so that the twelve days of the dedication offerings of the tribal princes (Nesi'im) would pass, lest their merit shield [Israel].

The Questions: Since the time appointed for carrying out the decree to kill the Jews was the coming thirteenth of Adar, why did he hurry to call the king's scribes immediately, on that very day — was there not still time until the appointed hour? "Then were called" — now it tells of Haman's cunning, how he devised plans to put his wickedness into effect: since he had deceived the king and obtained the ring, he feared that after some time the king might find out who the people were and what he wanted to do to them, and thereby annul his plan. Therefore he hurried to write the letters on that very day. And it relates that the king's scribes wrote according to all that Haman commanded, not as the king commanded — for the king knew nothing of this at all. Now in every province there were found several peoples, and so he wrote two letters for every province: one to the satrap, and one to the governor; and to every people that was in the province he wrote to the prince who was head over that people. And it is normal that every province has its own script, and every people has its own particular language, but for the most part all the inhabitants of a province are unified in their script. Therefore it says that he wrote to every province according to its script, and to every people according to its language.

So that scrolls would be dispatched. And letters shall be sent, estre tramis in O.F. [to be sent], which is of the [same grammatical] form as, “Did he ever fight [נִלְחוֹם]?” and as “Did I not appear [הַנִגְלֹה]?” and as “will be silenced [נִדְמֹה].” — Notes: (7) Shoftim 11:25. (8) I Shmuel 2:27. (9) Hoshea 10:15. On the thirteenth day of the twelfth month. On the thirteenth day of that month [Adar], which is the twelfth of the months of the year.

"And letters were sent" (venishloach sefarim) — the form is a passive participle of the nif'al pattern, like "nish'al" in "nish'al David" ("David asked leave," 1 Samuel 20:6).

Regarding these verses, it is worth paying attention to why there was a need for "a copy of the writ" (patshegen ha-ketav), when it would have sufficed to say "to every people and province." And likewise, in the letters of the reversal — in which the Jews would rule over their enemies — it says "a copy of the writ." Furthermore, the term patshegen indicates a copy of the [same] writing, but that is not the case here, for the copy of the writ does not contain the same bitter, cursed words found in the preceding verse, namely "to destroy," etc. — it only says "to be ready for that day." Moreover, in saying "to be ready for that day," these words are sealed and closed, since it is not mentioned what they were to do on the appointed day. Furthermore, it says "openly known to all the peoples" — who did not know all this? For once a decree is given and a herald is sent through every people and province, it is openly known to all the peoples. Furthermore, our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said in the Midrash that what happened to Haman was like what happened to a man traveling on the roads and in the wilderness, who, being tired and weary, said, "Would that I had a donkey!" Before he had even finished speaking, one of the officers came riding on his horses, with his mount, and donkeys and camels, and with him was a young colt (ayir), the foal of his she-donkey, born that very day, too small to bear the burden of the journey. The officer said to that weary man, "Take this foal of the she-donkey, for it is small, and carry it in your bosom." Then the man said, "It is true that I asked for a donkey, but I meant that it should carry me, not that I should carry it." And our Rabbis said that the same thing happened to Haman: he wrote "to be ready for that day," but did not say for what — he intended to kill, and it was reversed, and he himself was the one killed. And our Rabbis likewise said that when trouble comes upon Israel, it comes sealed, as in this case, where they said "to be ready" without explaining; but when the good comes, it comes explicitly, as it says "the Jews to be ready," etc. Now, these words of theirs might seem strange, for the king and Haman spoke clearly of "to destroy, to slay," etc. — so how was the matter sealed? But let us pay attention to the king's statement to Mordechai and Esther, in the passage of the reversal in which the Jews would rule [over their enemies], etc. — for he said, "Behold, I have given the house of Haman to Esther, etc., and you, write concerning the Jews, etc., for a writ that is written in the king's name and sealed, etc., cannot be revoked." Now it is worth noting how his statement "and you write concerning the Jews, etc." connects with his statement "behold, I have given the house of Haman to Esther" — especially since he says "and you" with a connecting vav, as though continuing from what preceded. This is a great question that occurs to everyone. The matter is this: the king gives a reason for the deficiency by saying "write, etc." — for if so, since "a writ that is written, etc." cannot be revoked, one could object: what use will Mordechai's and Esther's remedy be, seeing that the letters of wrath and fury which Haman sent to destroy, etc., were written in the king's name and sealed with the king's ring? What advantage would there be in reversing them now, since there is no answer to that? However, upon applying reason and understanding to the plain sense of the verses, we find that two kinds of letters were sent to every province: one to the king's satraps, the governors, and the officials of every people; and a second, in a different wording, meant to proclaim and to spread word publicly and openly in each of the places, before the masses. For according to his [Haman's] wisdom, through his lots, he saw that no opportunity presented itself to afflict Israel except on the thirteenth day of Adar. He said in his heart: If we spread word throughout the entire kingdom and make known openly our desire, which is to destroy, to slay, etc., the masses of the people — who are reckless in judgment and heedless of the decree — will not have the strength to wait until Haman's day of evil arrives, the thirteenth of Adar, [a wait of] eleven months. All the more so since every people, nation, and tongue desired evil for Israel and would rejoice at their share of the spoil, for what they all had in common was that all the idolatrous nations were haters of Israel's soul — and who could restrain himself to wait eleven months' time? And if they were to act so [prematurely], the merit attached to those [other] days — the days other than the day he had chosen — would come to Israel's aid, and his intention would be nullified. Or [he feared] lest the counsel of Israel devise a plot for the tribes of Israel to gather together to defend themselves during those eleven months, and thereby fell many slain among those who rose up against them on the appointed day. Therefore he schemed to send letters privately, exclusively to the satraps, the governors, and the officials of the peoples, telling and stating in clear language the entire intent — to destroy, etc. But all of this was not meant to be revealed to the masses of the city; it was to remain hidden with them alone, until the days he had set were complete. But what was proclaimed and announced explicitly and openly before the eyes of all the masses was a different copy, more sealed than this one — namely, "to be ready for that day" — and they did not explain to them for what they were to be ready. The matter remained entrusted to the great officials, who would inform them on the appointed day what they had been readied for, namely, to destroy, etc. In this way the wicked would not put forth their hand in their iniquity until the time was complete, and the intended plan would come to fruition. This is [the meaning of]: "And it was written to the king's satraps, and to the governors who were over every province, and to the officials of every people... and letters were sent... to destroy, to slay," etc. But this explicit writ was [sent] to the aforementioned officials. However, the copy of the writ (patshegen ha-ketav), which was to be proclaimed, and the decree given in publication, open to all the peoples — which was specifically meant to be open to all of them in the marketplaces and streets — was not explicit; rather, they would only proclaim and say that all the peoples were to be ready for that day. But in Shushan, which was the place of the king's residence, and there was no fear there that anyone would put forth a hand before the appointed time arrived, or that the Jews there would rise up [prematurely] — there he proclaimed explicitly that they should be destroyed. And this is [the meaning of] what was stated earlier: "and the copy of the writing of the decree that was given in Shushan to destroy them, he gave him to show to Esther," etc. For even though what was publicized in the other provinces was not so explicit, he showed her what was given in Shushan, so that the sealed [decree elsewhere] could be understood from the explicit one [in Shushan]. And therefore the city of Shushan was thrown into confusion. And in this the words of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, were confirmed — that the people of Shushan greatly tormented Israel, saying to them, "Tomorrow we will strangle you and plunder your spoil," etc. — something they would not say in places other than Shushan. This is only because it was not proclaimed explicitly [elsewhere], and this indicates what the king's [subjects] in the other provinces would have done had the king made the matter explicit to the masses from the start. Therefore, when the matter was reversed — that [the Jews] should rule [over their enemies], etc. — there was likewise a need for two kinds of letters, as will be explained, with God's help, when we explain the king's words to Mordechai and Esther and the matter of the letters. In [the verse] saying, "And King Ahasuerus said to Esther, etc., behold, I have given the house of Haman... and you write, etc." — the matter is that the king saw two evils confronting Israel. One, that in Shushan a decree had been given to destroy them, and who could say to the killers, "What are you doing?" — for there was no answer, since the decree had been given in Shushan. Two, that "a writ that is written in the king's name, etc., cannot be revoked" — and the letters of destruction had been written in the king's name and sealed with the king's ring, so there was no room to overturn the structure of the first letters. So the king said to them: "As for the first [evil], it has already been remedied — do not fear or be afraid of the people of Shushan, even though a decree was given in Shushan, for surely no man will raise his hand, since behold, I have given the house of Haman to Esther, and him they hanged, etc., for having laid his hand on the Jews. So who would dare put it into his heart to lay a hand on the Jews? But as for the second [evil], I do not know how to remedy it for you; therefore you write as seems good in your eyes, and perhaps in your wisdom you will find a good solution, for I do not know what to do, since 'a writ that is written in the king's name and sealed, etc., cannot be revoked'" — meaning: "So how can I possibly reverse the evil letters, seeing that they were written in the king's name and sealed with his seal? But you — know what you should do in your wisdom." Or, he might mean: "I have done my part in Shushan, for behold, I have given the house of Haman, etc. But regarding the other provinces, I cannot decree to the satraps, the governors, and the officials of the provinces to reverse the matter. However, what you shall do is write concerning the Jews" — meaning, to command them that they stand up for themselves and the like. This is [the meaning of] "write concerning the Jews" — for to write to the officials to reverse the decree is impossible, since "a writ that is written in the name..., etc., cannot be revoked," in such a way that there is no remedy to reverse the earlier one. And then Mordechai and Esther took counsel together to remedy the matter in a straightforward manner, such that the first letters would not be reversed. The matter is that, regarding the satraps, governors, and officials of the provinces, whose writ explicitly stated "to destroy," etc., it was impossible to reverse; but they acted wisely and wrote to them that the king had granted the Jews permission to gather and to defend themselves against those who rose up against them, in accordance with the first writ — in such a way that the earlier writ remained in force, except that permission was now given to the Jews to rise up against them. By this, everyone would understand that his anger had turned away from them. This is [the meaning of] "And he wrote according to all that Mordechai commanded, to the Jews, and to the satraps, and the governors, and the officials of the provinces, etc., that the king had granted the Jews to gather and to stand up for themselves," etc. However, regarding the copy of the writ of the decree, meant to spread word publicly and openly to all the peoples, they found a device for themselves — for they said, "In this we can actually reverse the matter without it being noticed, since [that first proclamation] did not spell out the decree as it was originally given, but only said 'to be ready for that day.'" Now they would reverse it and proclaim that the meaning of what they had been ready for on that day was to take revenge on their enemies. And this is [the meaning of] "the copy of the writ, that the decree be given, to be open and publicized to all the peoples" — namely, "and that the Jews should be ready," etc. For they did not only proclaim that the Jews should gather to defend themselves against those who rose up against them, as in the letter to the officials, but also that the Jews themselves should be ready for that day to take revenge on their enemies, even if their enemies did not rise up against them. And the masses of the peoples would not sense the reversal, since until then they had only known that they were to be ready for that day, without knowing why or for what — but now it was explicit in their eyes that the intent had [always] been for the Jews to take revenge on their enemies. By this, the words of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, are well accounted for, in that they said that at first, in the decree of the evil deed, the matter of "to be ready" was sealed and not explicit — for so it was as far as the masses [could perceive] — while in the reversal, it was explained clearly. And this is [the meaning of] what is said regarding both the first and later letters: "the word of the king and his decree" — "the word of the king" referring to the letters sent to the officials, and "his decree" referring to the proclamation "to be ready," etc. And the matter is quite sound in itself, and likewise all the verses and the words of our Sages, of blessed memory, fall properly into place, each in its place, coming in peace. And this is the way of truth. And I think that the intent of these evil judgments was as follows: "to destroy" (le-hashmid) — this refers to the destruction of children, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said regarding the verse "and against Aaron... to destroy him." And "to slay" (la-harog) refers to afterward [killing] the elders, their fathers — which is a cruel form of death, that the fathers should "eat sour grapes," by seeing the evil befall their offspring before their own eyes first, and afterward they themselves would be killed. And afterward, "to destroy" (le-abed) means that they should not even be buried. And afterward, "children and women" refers to the babes and infants at their mothers' bosoms, and afterward the women themselves. And he explains that what is stated, "to destroy, to slay," refers to "from young to old" — for they would begin with the young, and concerning their fathers it says "to old age"; and afterward, in like manner, the little children, and afterward the women — and all of this in one day, for the lot (pur) would only help him on that particular day. And the command "and to take their spoil for plunder" was placed after saying "to slay," etc. — even though the plunder makes no difference to the dead, who are already dead — nevertheless, so that they should not be lazy about carrying out the matter, it was stated in the king's name that their spoil would be plunder for the killers, and they would not be treated like those slain by the king's decree, whose property goes to the king. For by this, even a weak man would say, "I am a hero," out of desire for the spoil, [and this would spur them on] to kill and to destroy. And to hasten them, it says "to slay... and their spoil for plunder" after having mentioned killing and destroying, small and great — to indicate that their spoil should not become plunder except after they had killed them all, so that they would not set their minds on plundering the slain first [while others still lived], letting the rest live, or fleeing to save their lives. But now, knowing that they were not to put forth their hand for the plunder until no soul remained alive in any given city, they would be careful with all their strength not to let any living soul remain alive.

"And letters were sent" — this is a second point: that he sent the letters immediately, that very day, by the hand of the couriers, so that even if the king wanted to retract the matter, he would not be able to recall the letters, for a document written in the king's name cannot be revoked. He also chose that the general destruction should take place in all the provinces on one day, so that they would have no remnant or survivor. And he also did not explain in his letter that the decree encompassed all the provinces, as Mordecai explained in his letters, so that every prince and governor would think that this had been decreed only in his own province, and would therefore be more afraid to alter anything. [See further on, chapter 8, where I explained the additional differences between Haman's letters and Mordecai's letters.]

"And letters were sent [venishloach] by the hand of the runners" (verse 13) — this is the nif'al [passive] form, and it does not say "vayishlach sefarim" [and he sent letters, active form], because this matter runs contrary to human nature — to kill an entire nation — and therefore it is written "venishloach" [were sent, passive], [to indicate] that they were sent against their will, and they were compelled to serve as agents [for this]. But when the writing was the opposite of this — to save an entire nation from those who oppressed them and to stand up for their lives against their enemies — this matter, on the contrary, they did willingly; therefore it is written (below 8:10) "and he sent [vayishlach] letters, etc." [active form]. And likewise (above, verse 12) "and it was written [vayikatev]" [passive] "according to all that Haman commanded" — because they were compelled to this against their will. "And letters were sent, etc." Regarding what it says, "and letters were sent to destroy and to slay" — one must ask why it says here "to destroy and to slay and to cause to perish, from young to old, children and women," while in the verse before this it is written "and it was written according to all that Haman commanded, etc." — it should have written there already "to destroy and to slay and to cause to perish, etc."; why is this mentioned only in connection with "and letters were sent by the hand of the runners"? But according to the explanation we gave above, that Haman said only (above, verse 9) "let it be written to destroy them," because he thought to himself that perhaps Ahasuerus would consider it beneath the king's honor to kill an entire nation, and so he said "let it be written to destroy them" [in general terms] rather than carry out the deed immediately, so that if he wished to retract, he could retract, as we said above. And all the more so if he were to write that orders were given "to slay, to destroy, and to cause to perish all the Jews, from young to old, children and women" — this would not befit the king's honor. Therefore, alongside "and it was written according to all that Haman commanded," this matter — "to destroy and to slay, etc." — is not written at all. But this matter is written alongside "and letters were sent," which came from Ahasuerus himself; for once he knew Haman's will, he then added more than what Haman himself had said. And therefore it is written "and [letters] were sent by the hand of the runners" — for he commanded that the letters be hastened and sent. And it says here "to destroy and to slay and to cause to perish" — because man has three parts: body and soul, as other living creatures also have, and he has a third part as well, which is the intellect. There is a man whose excellence lies on the side of the body — he has stature and form. There is a man whose excellence lies on the side of the soul — as when he is a mighty warrior, for might [gevurah] is on the side of the soul. And there is a man whose excellence lies in the intellect — that he is wise. Corresponding to the first [the body], it says "to destroy" [le-hashmid]; corresponding to the second [the soul], it says "to slay" [la-harog], for slaying pertains to the soul, and therefore it is said only of a living creature. But destruction [hashmadah] is said even of what is not a living creature, as it is written (Leviticus 26:30) "and I will destroy your high places," and "I destroyed his fruit" (Amos 2:9); therefore slaying in particular applies to the soul. And "causing to perish" [ibud] is said of the wise, because the intellect possesses existence [metziut] to the greatest degree, and therefore it says that they should be made to perish, so that they will have no existence at all. And it says "from young to old" — even though the youth has not yet done anything at all, and the old man — however many days of life he has left — nevertheless both would be killed. "Children and women" — even though the infant is not counted among the people, nevertheless the infant will eventually come to be counted among the men; and the women, even in the end, do not come to be counted among the people — nevertheless, all of them would be killed, and not one would remain. "On the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar" — it does not write "in the month of Adar" alone, because it comes to say that he [Haman] was particular about the twelfth month, in that it is the last of the months, and by this he intended to bring an end to Israel. And likewise above it is written (verse 7) "in the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar" — for the reason that it was reckoned that the lot fell for him precisely in the twelfth month, the last month, for there [in that month] would be, God forbid, their end, as we have written above. And therefore here it is not written "and to take the spoil of them for a prey," whereas further on it is written (8:11-12) "and to take the spoil of them for a prey, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar" — mentioning the slaying and their spoil together. For here the wicked man [Haman] wanted to destroy Israel entirely. But when Hashem hands the wicked man over before the righteous one, Hashem gives the wicked man together with his spoil to the righteous one, and the righteous one swallows up the wicked man and the spoil together. And the spoil that Hashem wishes to give to the righteous is itself a cause for the destruction of the wicked, for Hashem wants the spoil to come from him to the righteous; and therefore it is written there (below, 8:11) "to destroy, and to slay, and to cause to perish, and to take the spoil of them for a prey" — all together.

The terms. An Aramaic term [meaning] the account of the writ, disreinement in O.F. [text, content, account]. Would become legally binding. The command of the writ which proclaimed that the decree of the king should be issued as a statute. Displayed conspicuously before all the people. This matter [that they be prepared for this specific date].

"Copy" (patshegen) — like "text" (a copy/version). "Made known" — that it should not be in secret. "Ready" (atidim) — prepared for the future, from the same root as "ve-utedah vasadeh lach" ("and get it ready for yourself in the field," Proverbs 24:27).

The Questions: What was "the copy of the writing" (patshegen ha-ktav)? Is it that the meaning of the first writing became known only by means of the second? But surely the copy itself was something sealed/obscure — and yet since it says [of it] that it was "revealed to all peoples," this implies that the first was sealed and closed; why was this so? And what was intended by "that they should be ready," since it does not say for what, or against what? "The copy [of the writing]" — in my opinion, he devised in this a double stratagem. For the letters that he sent to the princes of the provinces were sealed with the king's seal, and it was written upon them, at the top, that they should not be opened until the thirteenth day of Adar arrived — just as is the custom still today among kingdoms. And that is the meaning of "and sealed with the king's ring" — that they were sealed at the top, in such a way that no one would know what was written in them. But together with these sealed letters, he sent also open letters — a copy of the sealed writings — and this was openly [made known] to all the peoples: that they should be ready for the thirteenth day of Adar for war, [meaning] that on that day the sealed letters would be opened and they would know against whom they would fight. And in this he schemed a deep plan. First, he wanted that until that time this decree should not become known to anyone, since the [main] letters would be sealed, and thereby the Jews would not be able to seek help and rescue, nor set up advocates in the king's house, and also the king himself would not know the matter until after the fact. Second, through this plan he was assured that the Jews would not flee to other provinces nor hide themselves, because since it was not known until that time what they were to be ready for, the Jews too would automatically be ready for that day in every single city along with the other peoples, and only when the letter was opened and it became known that the destruction had been decreed against them would the others rise up against them and kill them.

"the copy of the writing" (verse 14) — The meaning is that the verse comes to inform us that Haman wrote that the king had commanded that they were obligated to do this thing. And therefore it says "the copy of the writing, to be given out for a decree [dat]," and the term "dat" means that this is what he decreed and enacted, as the Targum (the Aramaic translator) rendered it, and as Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote. And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni here, remez 1056), Rabbi Levi said: the prophecy of the nations of the world is obscure, and they do not know whether it is to be killed or to kill, for such is the prophecy of the nations of the world — "to be ready against that day" — whether to be killed or to kill. But Israel's prophecy is explicit (below 8:13): "that the Jews should be ready for that day, etc." The Midrash comes to say that it was not written out explicitly, for this writing was in the manner of "he prophesied but did not know what he was prophesying," for the prophecy of the nations is obscure, such that it does not come out into revealed action. And this reason is like the fact that the nations themselves do not have the Torah, which is the clear intellect. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:13): at the time those letters were sealed and given into Haman's hand, he came rejoicing*, he and all the members of his company, and he encountered Mordechai, who was walking before them. And Mordechai saw three children coming from school, and Mordechai ran after them. And when Haman and all his company saw that Mordechai was running after the children, they went after Mordechai to find out what Mordechai would ask them. Once Mordechai reached the children, he asked one of them, "Say to me the verse you learned." He said to him, "Be not afraid of sudden terror, neither of the destruction of the wicked, when it comes" (Proverbs 3:25). The second one began and said, "Today I read, and it was with this verse that I left off from school": (Isaiah 8:10) "Take counsel together, and it shall be brought to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand, for God is with us." The third one began and said: (Isaiah 46:4) "And even to old age I am the same, and even to hoary hairs will I carry you; I have made, and I will bear, I will carry, and will deliver." And the explanation of this is: these three children — the first said a verse directed at Israel, that they should not be afraid when a terror such as this comes upon them, for it is only momentary, since the righteous person has endurance, and one should not fear this. And the second said a verse directed at the wicked, for the entire matter of the wicked is that there is no substance in it — even though the wicked person plots evil, since the wicked is a thing devoid of substance and has no endurance, so too his counsel is annulled. And the third said a verse directed at Hashem, may He be blessed — that even though Hashem, may He be blessed, sees the wicked person thinking about the righteous person and seeking to bring him down, concerning this the verse says (Isaiah 46:4), "for even to old age I am the same, and even to hoary hairs will I carry you" — when the wicked person seeks to destroy the righteous person, nevertheless in the end Hashem, may He be blessed, delivers the righteous person from the wicked one. And even though Hashem, may He be blessed, sees the wicked person seeking to do harm, Hashem, may He be blessed, bears this from him. And therefore the first one said (Proverbs 3:25), "Be not afraid of sudden terror, etc.," which was said concerning the righteous person. And the second said (Isaiah 8:10), "Take counsel together, etc.," and this was said concerning the wicked. And the third said (Isaiah 46:4), "and even to old age I am the same," which was said because Hashem, may He be blessed, bears something, until He finally repays the wicked person for his wickedness. And here, regarding Haman, out of all these three things — whether from the side of Hashem, may He be blessed, or from the side of the righteous who are Israel, or from the side of Haman's wickedness — there is no need to fear.

And the decree was delivered in Shushan. The place where the king was situated; there the statute was issued on that day, to be poised for the thirteenth day of the month of Adar. Therefore, The city of Shushan was in confusion. I.e., the Jews therein. — Notes: (10) The gentiles of Shushan began to harass and taunt the Jews by telling them that they will be killed and their money will be confiscated. (Esther Rabbah 7:25)

"In haste" (dechufim) — in the sense of being hastened, meaning with speed. "But the city of Shushan" [was perplexed] — because it was troubled for the sake of the Jews; for why else would the capital be concerned, seeing that it was composed entirely of the king's own servants, and there was no Jew there except Mordecai alone? "Perplexed" (nevuchah) — is a past-tense verb, and therefore its stress falls on the penultimate syllable, from the same root as "nevuchim hem ba-aretz" ("they are entangled in the land," Exodus 14:3), like a person who is confounded and does not know what to do. And Mordecai, as soon as he learned of this matter, immediately tore his garments.

Our Sages, of blessed memory, said concerning "but the city of Shushan was perplexed" that every man of Shushan would say to the Jew, "Tomorrow I will strangle you and take your wealth," etc. Now this is as harsh as the grave: how could they act with such brazen insolence before the days of the calamity had even arrived? And where, then, was the dread of the king in the very place of his dwelling, that they should not lack the strength to wait until the appointed day, the fixed end set for the darkness, on the thirteenth of the month of Adar, and not rise up in brazen insolence already from now? Therefore Scripture stated beforehand that the people of Shushan saw three things — for with three instances there is an established presumption (chazakah) — to show that the king's desire for their harm was even greater than Haman's; therefore they too girded themselves to rise up with a high hand against Israel. And they are as follows: The first: that "the couriers went forth in haste by the king's order." For had the king acted in this matter only to fulfill Haman's wish, it would have sufficed for him to simply command that the couriers go and carry out Haman's bidding. But the fact that the couriers were hastened by his own word to them shows that in his own command he desired very much to hasten their dispatch, for "to destroy" was fixed in his heart to such a degree that he himself told the couriers, in person, to hurry greatly. And this is [the meaning of] "the couriers went forth in haste by the king's order" — for the king himself drove their running. The second: that "the decree was given in Shushan." For what need was there for the decree to be given specifically in Shushan, the seat of his royal throne, where the king and Haman themselves were, rather than waiting for the turning of the year on the thirteenth of Adar, and then commanding that their decree be carried out, without spreading word of it beforehand? But the truth is that the king and Haman's minds were not calmed and they had no rest until the decree was given in Shushan. The third: that out of the joy of their hearts over the matter of this evil deed, the king and Haman hastened to sit down and drink — something they had not done before. Therefore the people of the city of Shushan said in their hearts: behold, even though to bring total destruction upon an entire nation is a great thing, and it is the way of a king, when faced with something as repugnant as this, to take it to heart that the deed will seem evil to him and to retract it — now, through these three [signs], it is shown that the king's heart was firm and resolute about the matter itself, that he would in no way go back on it, for the evil had been fully determined by the king. Therefore "the city of Shushan was perplexed" — for they broke out against the Jews, saying to each one, "Tomorrow I will strangle you and plunder your spoil," as our Sages said. And it says "the city of Shushan," even though it was a great metropolis, because the fact is that the entire area of the king's palace and the courtyards attached to it, being so vast, is called "the birah" (the castle), while the rest of the city is called "Shushan," and the two together are called "Shushan ha-Birah" (Shushan the castle). And it states that the city of Shushan alone, which is the outer area, was perplexed, but the area of the birah was not so — out of a certain degree of dread of the king, they did not harass [the Jews] until the appointed time and end.

The Questions: Why was the decree not given in Shushan until after the couriers had gone out, seeing that Shushan takes precedence over all the provinces? How could the king sit and drink after having sold a great nation to be destroyed and annihilated — this can only be a cruel heart? And what is meant by "and the city of Shushan was perplexed," whose meaning is not clear? "The couriers" — he also hastened concerning the couriers, that they should go out immediately, so that the king would not be able to retract. And not only that, but the decree was not given in Shushan until the couriers had gone out, so that the king would not know of it beforehand, for he feared lest the king send after the letter of the decree and wish to recall it. And it further relates, as proof, that the king knew nothing at all of this, for he sat down with Haman to drink. For if this had been within his knowledge — to issue a decree to destroy an entire nation — how could he then sit and drink? Behold, even among those who judge capital cases, the practice is not to drink wine on the day they sentence a man to the death penalty — how much more so at a time when an entire nation was sold to be destroyed! And it relates that the city of Shushan was perplexed about the matter, for no one knew what was written in the sealed letters, and the copy did not explain what they were to be ready for — so that his plan succeeded, whether in that the matter was concealed from the king, or in that a hidden matter remained in every city. But Hashem frustrated his plan through Mordecai, as will be explained.

"And the king and Haman sat down to drink" (verse 15). It appears that a deed such as this — putting an entire nation to death — is not, by nature and by the order of the world, a cause for rejoicing in a person, but rather mourning and distress. And in order to put this out of their minds, they sat down to drink. This is also why it is written, "but the city of Shushan was perplexed." For one must ask: why was the whole city of Shushan perplexed, when the population of Shushan was mainly gentile nations, not Israel? Rather, it is because they did not know why such a thing should be done to an entire nation, and it was a source of astonishment in their eyes; therefore it is written "perplexed" [nevukhah], that they were bewildered by this. And they said: today Haman handed this nation over to be killed, and tomorrow Haman will hand over another nation, if he really means to carry through all his intentions. Therefore it is written "and the king and Haman sat down to drink" — to put this out of their minds — but "the city of Shushan was perplexed." And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, ad loc., remez 1056): "and the king and Haman sat down to drink, etc." Rabbi Chanina said: whoever says the Holy One, blessed be He, is lenient [vatran — one who forgoes], may his own innards be forfeited — rather, He is slow to anger, and He collects what is due to Him. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the tribes: you sold your brother in the midst of eating and drinking, as it is said (Genesis 37:25), "and they sat down to eat bread" — behold, Haman is taking you in the midst of eating and drinking. This is what is written: "and the king and Haman sat down to drink, but the city of Shushan was perplexed." The Holy One, blessed be He, cast weeping and confusion throughout Shushan: a woman going to spread out fruit [to dry] fell from the roof and died; a man going to draw water from a pit fell into it and died — as it is said, "but the city of Shushan was perplexed." It appears that this Midrash is to be understood as we have explained: that the king and Haman sat down to drink precisely because the whole city of Shushan was perplexed, as has been explained, and it was on account of this that the king and Haman sat down to drink, to put this out of their minds. And this is why they said that the sale of Joseph came about through eating and drinking, the selling of their own brother — a thing the mind cannot tolerate. For had there been no eating and drinking — on account of which a person's judgment becomes light upon him — this deed would not have been done, seeing that Joseph was their brother. So too Ahasuerus, who sold Israel to Haman to destroy an entire nation — and this is not in keeping with the order of the world — they sat down to drink in order to put this deed out of their minds. And as for what they said, that the Holy One, blessed be He, cast weeping, etc. — this is because this decree was decreed to destroy Israel, and this matter would have brought destruction upon the world, for if there is no Israel, the world is not considered anything, since the entire world was created for the sake of Israel. This is why the city of Shushan was perplexed, and a woman going to spread fruit on the roof fell. For the destruction of Israel, God forbid, is the nullification of the entire world altogether, as we have explained; and therefore "the city of Shushan was perplexed," as is being expounded. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:13) it is explained that when the decree was decreed, the Torah went forth weeping before the Holy One, blessed be He; the angels, too, cried out at her voice, [saying] that if there is no Israel, why do we need to be in the world? And it says there that Elijah, of blessed memory, ran to the Patriarchs and to Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, [and said]: why do you not stand in the breach? And Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, said: if the decree is sealed with clay, our prayer will be heard; but if it is sealed with blood, our prayer will not be heard. And Elijah, of blessed memory, said: it is sealed with clay. Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, said to him: go and inform Mordechai that he should pray, etc. — and it continues at length there. The explanation of this Midrash is that the Torah belongs specifically to Israel, and if Israel were to cease to exist, then the Torah would be nullified — as is stated in the Gemara in the chapter of Rabbi Akiva (Shabbat 88b), that Hashem, may He be blessed, did not wish to give the Torah to the angels. Therefore the Torah wept a great deal, for weeping everywhere indicates loss; for when a person's relative dies, which is a loss, there is weeping over it. And tears are the depletion of the power of the eye; therefore weeping is associated with loss, and this is known everywhere. Likewise the angels cried out at her voice, because the angels serve those below, especially when a person keeps the Torah, as it is written (Psalms 91:11), "For He will charge His angels concerning you, to guard you in all your ways." And why should the higher beings serve the lower beings? This can only be because there is a superiority in the lower beings that the angels do not have, and that is the Torah. And when Israel — who possess the Torah — do not exist, then whom do they serve? Therefore they too cried out. And it says that the sun and moon gathered in their brightness [withdrew their light]. And the explanation of this is that through the sun and the moon the world is brought to completion in actuality, and this is through the light of the sun and moon. For just as the eye brings a person into actuality through sight, so the sun and moon bring the world into the actuality of completeness. And it says (Esther Rabbah 7:25) that Moses said: if the decree is sealed with clay, this decree is subject to annulment. The explanation is: this sin that was committed — that they went to the feast of Ahasuerus (Megillah 12a) — if this was done by people who are of a material nature, namely the common people [amei ha-aretz] who are material [chomriyim], since clay is nothing but plain matter, then this deed is considered as though it were merely an inadvertent sin, as we say in the second chapter of tractate Bava Metzia (33b): "'and declare unto My people their transgression, and to the house of Jacob their sin' (Isaiah 58:1) — 'to My people their transgression,' these are the Torah scholars, for whom inadvertent sins are treated as deliberate ones; 'and to the house of Jacob their sin,' these are the common people [amei ha-aretz], for whom deliberate sins are treated as inadvertent ones." Therefore, if it is sealed with clay, which is matter, this decree is subject to annulment, for the sealing corresponds to the nature of the sinner. But if it is [sealed] with blood — "for the blood is the soul" (Deuteronomy 12:23) — meaning to say, if the sin comes from those who possess soul, such as the Torah scholars who are not material, and for whom even inadvertent sins are treated as deliberate ones — then this decree is not subject to annulment. And all this is as is fitting; for matter is subject to change, and therefore the decree that comes upon sinners who are people of matter, who are subject to change, is likewise subject to change, since the decree corresponds to their worth. But if the sin comes from the side of people who possess soul, namely the Torah scholars, to whom the change that is material does not apply — for change applies only to that [material substance] — therefore the decree does not change. And it can further be explained that he spoke thus: if the seal is with clay, that is to say that they followed their [evil] inclination and their material desire, then, since the sin came from the material side, and such a thing is subject to change, the decree can therefore be annulled. But when it is sealed with blood, meaning that the sin comes from the side of the soul — for the soul is the blood — and is not from the side of material desire, this thing is not subject to change, as when one acts in rebellion and betrayal. And this is the same matter as the first explanation as well. This can also be explained — and this is the primary explanation — namely, that if the sealing is from the side of the attribute of Hashem's truth, may He be blessed, then, because it is from the side of His attribute of truth, it endures and has no change. And this is called "blood" [dam], "for the blood is the soul" (Deuteronomy 12:23), and it is the truth/essence of a person. Therefore it says "if it is sealed with blood," meaning that the decree was decreed from His attribute of truth, [and so] it endures, for truth endures. And there is a hint to this explanation: for the Explicit Name [Shem HaMeyuchad, i.e., the Tetragrammaton] indicates His truth, may He be blessed, and its numerical value is "Mah" (45), which is one more than "dam" [blood, 44]. This is because every seal contains both the form and the thing that receives the form, and this form is distinct from the receiver of the form; so "dam" together with the form equals "Mah" (45), corresponding to the numerical value of the Explicit Name. And it says (Esther Rabbah 7:13), "but if it is sealed with clay [tit]," meaning that the decree came only from the name "El," a name that is a mere designation [shem kinnuy], which is not the Explicit Name; and such a thing can possibly be changed through prayer. And "[be-]tit," counting the letter bet, has the numerical value of "lamed" (30); one more than this is "El" (31), which stands opposite the form of the seal. And even though, in the case of "it is sealed with blood," the letter bet — which is the instrumental bet, meaning "with" — is not included in the count, [this is] certainly because where it is not necessary, one need not include it in the count; but where it is necessary, the bet should be added into it, even though it is the instrumental bet.