Esther · Chapter 4

Mordechai was apprized. The Master of Dreams told him that the celestial beings had consented to this [decree], because they had prostrated themselves to the idol in the days of Nevuchadnetzar, and because they had enjoyed Achashveirosh’s feast. — Notes: (1) He was told by means of a dream and not by רוח הקדש [The Holy Spirit], a higher form of prophecy, because “Shushan was in confusion,” and רוח הקדש [The Holy Spirit] dwells only in the midst of joy. Alternatively, Eliyahu the prophet told him. (2) See Esther Rabbah 7:13 and Maseches Megillah 12a.

"And he went out into the midst of the city" — this is [Shushan, which is] in Elam, the province (Daniel 8:2).

Behold, it is puzzling: what did Mordecai know that no other man or woman knew? For the decree was given in Shushan the capital, revealed to all the peoples who were in Shushan — so how can it say "and Mordecai knew"? Second: it is puzzling that a minister so great and wise-hearted as he did not act as would seem fitting according to what is visible — namely, that he put on sackcloth and spread ashes and went out into the street of the city and cried a great and bitter cry. He should not have done so; rather, he should have gathered together the remnant of Israel in their assembly, to deliberate and discuss how they should seek respite for themselves — whether to proclaim a fast and a solemn assembly, or to come before the king to entreat him, and prepare themselves for prayer and for a gift. But to cry out in the city street in fasting and sackcloth and ashes is not the proper thing to do, for what help would it be to him from those who hear him? If so, what did he see in this, and what brought him to do such a thing? Third: it says "and he came before the king's gate, etc., for none might enter, etc." — this shows that he was prevented from entering only because he was clothed in sackcloth, for otherwise he would have entered to set the matter right by speaking to the king and to the queen. If so, then what held him back from removing the sackcloth from himself and coming to the king? Fourth: why did he not go to plead for his own life and the life of his people, that Queen Esther should speak to the king, as he did afterward through a messenger? And why did he not go now, so that the outcries would cease? And why did he go out and go about crying bitterly in the marketplaces and in the streets? Fifth: it says "and in every province, etc." — this verse appears to be inserted in between connected matters, for once it had finished saying "and he came before the king's gate, etc.," it should have said "and Esther's maidens came," since it was from his coming before the king's gate that Esther's maidens and her chamberlains saw him — it should not have interrupted with the matter of "in every province, etc." Sixth: in saying "and she sent garments to clothe Mordecai" — was it that it occurred to her mind that, for lack of garments, Mordecai was wearing filthy clothes? It would have been proper for her to send to him asking, "what this was and wherefore this was," as she did afterward — so why did she not do so now? Seventh: it says "what this was and wherefore this was" — but since, in knowing what this was — that he was wearing sackcloth and ashes — she would thereby know wherefore this was, for the two are one and the same, since it is impossible to tell her what this was, that he goes about crying dressed in sackcloth, without informing her of the reason for it. Also, let us consider whether Esther knew of the decree that had been given in Shushan or not; and regarding his reply, in which Mordecai told him all that had befallen him — it would have been far better had he gone in person and not by a messenger, for thereby he would have removed the sackcloth from himself. Eighth: it says "that which had befallen him" — but surely no private matter had befallen him personally, for the king's selling of Israel to Haman befell all the Jews, and not him alone. Ninth: for a matter of such an evil deed was not done by chance, but rather by the providence of the Blessed One. If so, how could the matter be attributed to chance, by saying "that which befell him"? Tenth: it says "and the sum of the money, etc." — what would it give her, or add to her, to know the sum of the money? He tells her how they were sold — but what benefit is there in informing her of the amount of the money? Also, it says "the specification of" and does not say the number or the weight of the money or the like. Eleventh: it says "to show Esther, and to declare unto her" — after he shows her, what further need is there for declaring? And if it means "to declare unto her that which had befallen him and the sum of the money" — why did he tell this to Hatach, if not in order to tell her? Moreover, it should have been the reverse, and should have said "to declare unto her and to show her, etc.," since the telling refers back to what preceded. Twelfth: in saying "to charge her" [aleha] rather than "to charge to her" [lah] — in saying "aleha" (upon her), it indicates a matter that pertains to her personally. Thirteenth: in saying "to go in unto the king to make supplication unto him" — what need was there for this now, when there was still a respite of eleven months? And this difficulty is doubled further below, where she says to him that "his one law is to put to death whoever comes uncalled," and "I have not been called to come in unto the king these thirty days" — why then did he charge her to put her life in jeopardy, rather than wait another thirty days? Not only that, but he railed against her with words as hard as sinews: "for if you keep silent at this time, etc., you and your father's house will perish." Fourteenth: why should they be put to death — what had she and her father's house done, except for the present delay? Surely this delay came about for a legitimate reason, and she had not transgressed nor sinned — how much less her father's house! Now, in order to arrive at the explanation, let us copy the language of our Sages of blessed memory in Midrash Chazit, omitting part of it since it is very long. Its language is as follows: Rabbi Yishmael said: eighteen thousand five hundred Jews went to the banquet house and ate and drank, etc. Immediately Satan arose and slandered them before the Holy One, blessed be He, and said before Him, "Until when will You cling to this nation, etc." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "The Torah — what will become of it?" He answered before Him, "Master of the Universe, let it suffice itself with the upper beings." And He also made His mind equal, to erase Israel. At that moment the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "Why do I need a nation for whose sake I multiplied My signs and My wonders against all who rose up against them for evil? I will make their memory cease from among men." Immediately the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Satan, "Bring Me a scroll, and I will write upon it a decree of destruction." At that moment Satan went and brought a scroll and wrote upon it. Immediately the Torah went forth in the garments of widowhood, etc. The ministering angels, too, cried out at the sound of her weeping, and said before Him, "Master of the Universe, if Israel ceases from the world, why do we need to be in the world?" Once the sun and the moon heard this, they too gathered in their brightness, etc. At that moment Elijah, of blessed memory, ran to the Patriarchs of the world and to Moses the son of Amram, and said to them, "Until when will the Patriarchs of the world lie sunk in slumber, etc.?" They said to him, "Why?" He said to them, "Because Israel enjoyed the banquet of Ahasuerus, etc." Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob said, "If they transgressed the decree of the Holy One, blessed be He, and their sentence has already been sealed, what can we do?" Elijah went back and said to Moses, "O faithful shepherd, etc., what will you answer regarding this calamity?" Moses said to him, "Is there any worthy man in that generation?" He said to him, "There is, and his name is Mordecai." He said to him, "Go and inform him, so that he may stand there in prayer, and I from here. O faithful shepherd, a letter of destruction has already been written against Israel." Moses said to him, "If it is sealed with clay, our prayer will be heard; but if it is sealed with blood, what was to be will be." He said to him, "It is sealed with clay." Moses our teacher said to him, "Go and inform Mordecai." Immediately he went to Mordecai — this is what is written, "And Mordecai knew all that was done," etc. — thus far [the Midrash]. Now, if we were to set our minds to raise all the questions that ought to be raised on this passage and to answer them all, the explanation would grow very long; nevertheless, let us raise some of them, as they occur to us. First: in that the Blessed One said to Satan, "The Torah — what will become of it?" and he answered Him, "Let it suffice itself with the upper beings" — if this answer is sufficient, we may pose a difficulty regarding our God, blessed be He: why did He raise it at all? Furthermore, if this answer is good, why did the Torah go forth in the garments of widowhood? And if this answer is not sufficient, how could He, on its basis, make His mind equal toward erasing Israel? Furthermore, at the giving of the Torah, the Blessed One Himself did not want to give the Torah to the angels. Furthermore, with whom did He "make His mind equal"? If it means that He agreed with Satan, it would not be fitting to use the language of equalizing — for what comparison is there between straw and grain, heaven forbid? Furthermore, if He agreed to erase them — that is, to destroy them — He should have written it immediately, and not first said, "Why do I need a nation, etc.," and asked that a scroll be brought. Furthermore, does He, blessed be He, need to have anything written down before Him? For who can say to Him, "What are You doing?" Furthermore, how could our merciful God, who wrote in His own Torah, "And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly" — how could He write a decree of destruction? Furthermore, is it conceivable that merely for enjoying the banquet of Ahasuerus they should become liable to utter destruction? And even if it is said that it was bad and bitter, for they sinned through harlotry, as mentioned in that passage — this still cannot escape the difficulty that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai raised against his disciples who held this view, saying, "If so, let those of Shushan be killed [alone]!" Furthermore, in saying, "why do I need a nation for whose sake I multiplied My signs" — it would have been more fitting to say, "why do I need a nation that provokes Me," or the like, rather than basing it on the multiplying of His signs. Furthermore, in saying, "I will make their memory cease from among men" — surely in His own Torah He nullified this very argument, saying, "I said I would scatter them afar, I would make their memory cease from among men, were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, etc." So how is it that then He was not concerned about the wrath of the enemy, lest they misconstrue it? Furthermore, it says, "Immediately the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Satan, Bring Me a scroll" — is it for lack of scrolls before Him, blessed be He, that He should have to command Satan to bring one? Furthermore, what need has He, blessed be He, for a scroll on which to write? Furthermore, it says, "At that moment Satan went and brought a scroll" — where did he go? Furthermore, is it conceivable that a physical scroll would be written before Him, blessed be He? Furthermore, in saying that the Torah put on the garments of widowhood — how can this be said truly of the Torah? Furthermore, what concern is it of the ministering angels that they should weep over Israel — would it not be better for them that the Torah suffice itself among the upper beings? And likewise, why should the sun and moon gather in their brightness? And at the end of the passage, let us apply understanding and comprehension: what is this question of Moses our teacher, of blessed memory — whether it is sealed with clay or with blood? Who put clay or blood above? And why is there no remedy with blood, as there is with clay? And also, why was it necessary for both Moses and Mordecai to seek mercy, one from here and one from there, and did not one alone suffice? However, there is no doubt that the wings of His mercy, blessed be He, are always spread over us so as not to destroy us, for He delights in kindness and abounds in doing good even to those who are liable to punishment. And one whose eyes of intellect are not shut off from seeing through their windows, whose understanding is open-eyed, will see with his own eyes and point with his finger to the words of this passage, which teach us the greatness of His mercy, blessed be He, in setting all His concern upon saving our souls from death. This will be understood by first prefacing, in brief summary, that it is known to those upon whom light has shone that the Torah's quality, from the supernal world, is essentially spirituality, blessed be its name, inseparable from Him, blessed be He, and it sustains all the worlds by means of the flow that cascades down from it through the worlds until below, to the earth. For through the engagement of a man of Israel with it, its lights break forth above in the supernal world, and from there many honored lights spread forth, and from them a flow is clothed that spreads to sustain all the worlds, down to this lowly world. A second premise: in the flow of lights coming from above, called Torah, there are two aspects. One: the measure of delight fitting to it, according to its honor, in providing for its own sustenance. Second: an additional aspect, which is also to cascade down from it to the lower world a flow that sweetens and sustains it. The first aspect belongs to it from above even in the absence of merit in Israel, sometimes even when the merit is exceedingly small. But the second aspect comes about through Israel having many merits — for through the Torah and mitzvot in which Israel engages, they raise up the lights of those merits above, up to their root, and since they shine there, above it too, its flourishing rises; and then it draws down from above a flow of very great and abundant lights, so that besides its light shining without limit, these lights also cascade down below to the earth, through the worlds, to sweeten the world and bless it and sustain it. But this happens only through Israel's engagement in Torah. However, were we to imagine that the ministering angels engaged in Torah, the merit of their engagement would not cause a flow to cascade down below to sustain the world, but only that which it needs for itself, which is the first aspect. This is because the engagement of a man of Israel with it is not comparable to the engagement of the ministering angels with it — whether from the side of their souls, as is known to those who know the secret, or with respect to the spreading forth of the flow to sustain the world, which does not occur through the engagement of angels, as is known — for this reason man alone is comprised of all the worlds down to dust, so that everything is blessed through him. Now let us come to the matter: when Satan brought his accusation against us, He, blessed be He, said to him, "The Torah — what will become of it?" — meaning: were it that, in the absence of Israel, only the flow that cascades down to the lower world would be nullified — which is the second aspect of the second premise — I would remain silent, saying that the loss is only to Israel who sinned. But surely it cannot be avoided that what pertains to the Torah itself, to shine for it — which is the first aspect — would also be lost. This is the meaning of "the Torah, what will become of it" — meaning, on its own account, for I am concerned about it, since for the sake of its honor it is fitting to prolong Israel's existence, lest its delight be lost to it through Israel's engagement with it. And indeed there was Torah among Israel at that time, as our Sages of blessed memory expounded at length concerning the yeshiva of disciples that Mordecai had, and the like, and it is inconceivable to exclude the ironsmiths and locksmiths and their disciples from this. Satan answered, "Let it suffice itself with the upper beings" — meaning: even though the cascading of the flow to sustain the world, which is from the second aspect, would be lost with the loss of Israel, and also somewhat of the first aspect — for even through the engagement of the upper beings, what pertains to it on its own account would not be entirely lacking — nevertheless, there is more in that aspect, even when it stands alone, when it comes about through Israel, than when it comes about through the engagement of the upper beings. Now, even though this argument did not suffice to decree destruction, it at least sufficed to make His mind equal, etc. This is because in every judgment of a person, a city, or a kingdom before the heavenly court, it is inevitable that there be an inclination to the right and to the left — even in Him, blessed be He, between the attribute of justice and the attribute of mercy; and sometimes the argument of the attribute of justice prevails, and sometimes the argument of the attribute of mercy, and sometimes the matter is evenly balanced. And this is what is meant: although at first His mind, blessed be He, was inclined toward mercy, now His mind became equal, so that His mind was even, neither leaning nor tipping to either side, for the matter of erasing Israel was evenly balanced. And since He, blessed be He, delights in kindness and tips toward kindness, and rejoices in those who teach a defense on behalf of His children — as He does on the Day of Atonement, and as our Sages of blessed memory said in Genesis Rabbah, that for this reason He, blessed be He, chose Abraham from among all the righteous who preceded him, because he was one who taught a defense on behalf of creatures, concerning whom it is said, "You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness" — meaning, You have loved to vindicate rather than to condemn creatures — therefore, what did He, blessed be He, do when He saw that here the matter was evenly balanced? He sought to arouse those who were capable of teaching a defense — the Torah, and Elijah, and the souls of the righteous, and the like — as He did with Moses, when He said, "Let Me alone, etc." This is because there were two arguments that could have been offered before Him, blessed be He, to vindicate Israel. One: to say, "After You performed so many signs and wonders to cast down those who rose up against them with a mighty hand, will You now destroy this nation?" — and this is the argument of Moses our teacher, of blessed memory, when he said, "Why, Hashem, does Your anger burn against Your people, whom You brought forth, etc., with great power and with a mighty hand?" The second argument is His own statement, blessed be He: "I said I would scatter them, I would make them cease, etc., were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, etc." — for if, God forbid, He were to make a full end, it would be a desecration of the Name in the matter, for the nations of the world would say that it was they who did it, and their hand had been exalted over the Name and over His anointed. Now, since it was His will, blessed be He, to hear these arguments from the mouths of defenders, He said, in order to give them an opening for the first argument, "Why do I need a nation for whose sake I multiplied My signs and My wonders against all who rose up against them for evil" — this was in order that defenders be aroused to speak and say, "On the contrary, from the very fact that You mention it — why, Hashem, does Your anger burn, to quickly destroy the very ones for whom You multiplied Your signs and Your wonders?" But He saw that there was no one to answer. Then He said further, "I will make their memory cease from among men," in order that the defenders should answer and say, "But the end of this very verse is, 'were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, etc.'" — which is the second argument. Yet, despite this, no one spoke a word to plead well on their behalf, because they had not forgotten what had befallen them at the time of the destruction of the Temple, when the Patriarchs and Moses came to teach a defense, and it did not avail them. And when He, blessed be He, saw that there was no good advocate, He immediately said to Satan, "Bring Me a scroll, etc." And God did this so that, during the time that Satan went to bring the scroll, an angel-advocate would be roused to plead for Israel. And the matter of the scroll is this: He, blessed be He, said, "Behold, the enjoyment of the feast is not enough to consume all of Israel from the world" — how much more so according to the statement of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, that only those of Shushan should be killed, but not the whole world! Therefore, Rabbi Yishmael, who holds this view — that the matter was about the feast — said that He said to him, "Bring a scroll," meaning: just as there can be no writing except upon a scroll that can bear it, so too there can be no decree of destruction except upon matters of sin that can bear it, for this sin alone is not sufficient. Therefore, go and search for a comprehensive guilt upon which I can write a decree of destruction for the whole world, in combination with the sin of the feast. And in the general sense of his words, he meant that even with whatever further accusation he might bring against Israel, no sin would be sufficient to bring about an absolute, final destruction now — only to write it down, but not to carry it out at present, until it is seen whether they will repent of their way and rectify what they have perverted — as our Sages of blessed memory said in the Gemara, tractate Rosh Hashanah, that a decree which is written but not sealed is easily annulled — how much more so if what he brought was the sin of the image, which was only for outward appearance. Therefore, when the Torah saw that the evil had not been fully concluded, but only written down, so as to see whether they would repent — it then showed its distress in order to arouse His compassion, blessed be He, and went forth in the garments of widowhood. These are the modes of the plain meaning of the Torah, which are as garments to it — peshat, remez, derash — which would now be nullified due to the absence of Israel, for it was now widowed of Israel, who beget from it lights and angels through their engagement with it and its commandments in the supernal world. And after she showed the flaw in the supernal world pertaining to the Torah, the ministering angels came and cried out concerning the world of angels — that it too would be nullified, since their whole salvation was to cascade the supernal flow, through them, down to the lower world. This is the meaning of, "if Israel ceases from the world, why do we need to be in the world?" And it says "they cried out at the sound of her weeping" — because at first they thought it would be good for them were Israel to cease, for then the Torah would be given to them, as they had asked, saying, "who has set Your glory upon the heavens." But at the sound of her weeping they recognized that everything depends on Israel who are in the lower world, and that if there are no righteous ones below, everything is nullified. And once the sun and the moon, of the world of the celestial spheres, heard this, they too gathered in their brightness, saying, "If light is withheld from the angels, by what path will the light of the world of the spheres, which receives from the world of the angels, shine?" Thus all the worlds were found to feel it — the supernal world, the world of angels, the world of the spheres, and how much more the lower world itself. Then Elijah ran, etc. Now, the Patriarchs despaired and said, "If they transgressed the decree, etc." — and this is for the reason we wrote, that they remembered that their pleading at the time of the destruction had not availed them. Then he spoke to Moses, to say to him, "What will you answer regarding this calamity" — for he did not despair of speaking to Moses, lest he answer as the Patriarchs did. And this is as we said, that he said: "Indeed, I know that you too were a helper at the time of the destruction, together with the Patriarchs, and it did not avail you — but now, do not remain silent." This is because the entire strength of Haman's evil decree stemmed from the fact that Moses our teacher died in Adar; therefore he said to him, "What will you answer regarding this calamity" — meaning that, for this calamity to occur concerning you, do not answer as the Patriarchs did, for behold, they are gaining strength over your removal, and you must show that your power to benefit Israel has not departed on account of your removal, so that their evil decree will not be able to harm us at all. Then Moses said to him, "Is there a worthy man, etc." — meaning that through the removal of harm from Israel, Mordecai would arise and bring Israel back in repentance, to rectify their perversion, while I would fulfill his words by casting down Haman, so that the evil should be turned back upon him, contrary to what he thought — that my strength had weakened. Or it may be that, since it was through Moses that the defeat of Amalek began — for when Moses raised his hand, Israel prevailed against Amalek — Elijah said to him, "What will you answer regarding this calamity," meaning that the matter concerns him, since it concerns Amalek. Then Moses said, "Is there, etc.," meaning: "Behold, there with me was Joshua, who is of the descendants of Rachel, destined to cast down Amalek, as it is said, 'Surely the young of the flock shall drag them away.' " Therefore, when he was told that Mordecai — who is also of the descendants of Rachel — existed, Moses said to him, "Let him stand there, etc.," and this would be along the lines of Moses and Joshua; and this, too, follows what was mentioned — one to remove the harm from Israel, and one to strengthen them to cast down the enemy, in the manner of "and Israel prevailed." Then Moses our teacher said to Elijah, "If it is sealed with clay, our prayer is heard, etc." Now, what appeared to me at first — though I later heard that others before me had said the same — is this: that "if it is sealed with clay," meaning that their sentence was sealed on account of the enjoyment of the feast, which is a physical enjoyment, then "our prayer is heard"; but if "with blood," which refers to bowing down to the image — which pertains to blood, that is, the soul — there is no remedy. But the difficulty with this is that the Patriarchs and Moses himself asked Elijah why they had become liable to destruction, and he told them it was because Israel had enjoyed the banquet of Ahasuerus, and for this reason it was decreed upon them to be destroyed from the world and their memory lost, as we have copied his words. If so, then what is the point of this question, "if it is sealed with clay, etc."? Surely he had already told him explicitly and clearly that it was sealed with clay — so why should the matter now be concealed in a hint? And still, one could force an answer, saying that his intent was to say: "True, the sin of the feast caused the evil and filled the measure — but as to the seal, what was the seal upon?" — even though it would be understood on its own that this is what it was. But it is also possible to say, if we examine precisely, that he said "they enjoyed the feast" and not "the drinking-feast of Ahasuerus" — and this is as mentioned above, regarding "and the drinking was according to the law, none did compel": since the king's whole aim and desire was to cause Israel to stumble, he therefore commanded regarding the wine that none should compel, in order to trap them into sinning willingly — unlike what is written concerning the bread of his allowance. Now the drinking was more severe than the eating, for it was the wine of their libations, and the Torah equated it with an offering to idolatry, as it is said, "who ate the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their libations." Therefore, even though there were certainly some who stumbled and fell through the wine of the kingdom, still, many drank without our being able to say that they refrained out of caution against the sin of idolatry, since there was no compulsion. Thus the sin common to all those invited from among our people was the enjoyment of the feast — that is, the eating — and it was for this that they were held liable. This is the meaning of "they enjoyed his feast," whose implication is something not as severe as idolatry, but only a physical enjoyment, namely from the food of his table — and it does not say "the drinking-feast of Ahasuerus," whose essential meaning is the drinking. And this is what he asked, "if it is sealed with clay, etc.," meaning: "True, they were held liable for enjoying his feast — but is it sealed with clay," that is, referring to the feast alone, as its plain sense indicates — "or is it sealed with blood," meaning that many drank of the wine of their libations, which has an association with idolatry, and you spoke only the expression "enjoyment of the feast" because that term of enjoyment includes everything altogether — and if it is so, our prayer is not heard." And he answered that it was sealed with clay, for most of them sinned only in the matter of the enjoyment of the feast. The upshot of the words of our Sages of blessed memory in this matter is that, God forbid, the Israel of that generation had become liable for utter destruction before the Omnipresent, and there was no remedy except through the prayer of Moses our teacher, of blessed memory, and Mordecai the Jew, and that Moses our teacher sent Elijah to inform Mordecai of the matter. And this is what is meant by "and Mordecai knew," etc. — for he knew it from the mouth of Elijah. With this, let us come to the explanation of the verses, with the help of Heaven. It says "he knew all that was done" — therefore "he rent, etc." — because he saw that there was no remedy unless Israel returned to Him who smote them, and sought Hashem of Hosts through complete repentance, for the matter would come about from Him alone, since a decree of destruction had been written before Him, and there is no healing for this sickness by speaking to the king or to the general of the army, but only to Hashem alone — for he knew what had been done from the mouth of Elijah. And it says "all that," for had he known only what had been done in Heaven — that a sentence had been sealed — but had not known the matter concerning Moses our teacher, he would have despaired and grown weak, as the Patriarchs of the world said, "If they transgressed the decree, etc., what can we do?" And likewise, had he known only that Moses our teacher had sent word that he should pray and that Haman's evil would be rectified, but did not know the full force of the decree that had been sealed above, then too the matter would not have grown great enough in his eyes to prompt such great action. But it says that he knew everything, and this is "he knew all that was done" — and therefore, "and he rent, etc." Now he said in his heart: "If Israel does not return to Hashem our God in complete repentance, what benefit is there, since Moses our teacher was rebuffed, and how much more so I?" To what may this be compared? To a physician who comes to heal one whose belly is distended from bad foods — but if the sick person refuses to rid himself of his ailment, of all the harmful matter he has swallowed that distends the belly, then whatever the physician heals will be in vain. So too is this matter: behold, Israel's belly is distended, their soul is defiled from the belly filled with the feast of Ahasuerus, together with other matters of sin — how then could the words of our mouths be acceptable and favorable for them before Hashem, when the defilement of their impurity, their guilt, is engraved upon their bones? Therefore he considered and arranged all the astonishing things he did in the marketplaces and streets, with sackcloth and dust. This is because he said in his heart: "If I call upon them, all the Jews who are in Shushan will stand together, and I would say to them: 'Give word and counsel here, and understand what you should do, for a full and decreed destruction has been enacted — for the decree was given in Shushan the capital, and in the other provinces of the king the runners went out, hastened by the word of the king, to destroy, etc. And had we merely been sold as bondmen and bondwomen, I would have kept silent — but this evil thing is to destroy from soul to flesh; and you know that a document written in the king's name, etc., cannot be revoked, and also that the king's heart is bent to evil, for surely, when the decree was given in Shushan the capital, the king and Haman sat down to drink in gladness of heart. Therefore know now that the evil has gone forth from the king, and that he is bringing it to completion — so rend your hearts and not your garments, and return to Hashem your God with fasting and sackcloth and ashes, and do not eat over the blood, until Hashem looks down and sees from the heavens, and is willing to be gracious to you, and turns again in compassion upon you.'" Would they not answer and say to Mordecai — these are empty consolations, this one weeping and that one weeping? One would say: "Behold, your words are good and upright, but let not your heart be troubled, for such is the way of Ahasuerus — to decree decrees and afterward turn his anger away from them; and blessed is Hashem, for He has made His kindness to us wondrous, in prolonging the appointed time until the twelfth month, Adar — and it is not impossible that, as the days draw near, the king will have before him a time of favor. Let us come before the king to entreat him, to say before him, 'What is our transgression and what is our sin? We have been servants to our lord ever since we were exiled to your land' — and let us weep before him, and it is not impossible that his compassion will be stirred and moved." And this one would say: "Do this — take whatever silver and gold each has stored up in his house and in his walls, and bring it, and bring down to the man a gift fit to honor him, and let us not appear before him empty-handed. And let us also do this before we appear before him: let all the officials who see the king's face, and all the king's servants who are at the king's gate, share the burden, so that they too will speak well of us to the king; and thus we shall come to his dwellings, bow down at his footstool and to the officials who are with him, and entreat him — and all his officials and servants will help us from the city, and he will not turn away their faces, nor the face of the gift that goes before us, empty-handed." And this one would say: "Why should you oppress the people, and squander silver, and squander gold? Do you not know that we have a sister in the king's house, and his soul is bound up with hers? Will she not go and speak to the king, to turn away his wrath from destroying — and will he turn away her face?" And this one would say, feigning piety: "Is this how you repay Hashem?" — and where, then, is the trust that you placed in our merciful God? Did He not say — and He does not act otherwise — "I will not despise them, nor will I abhor them, to destroy them"? Do not fear and do not be terrified, for Hashem our God, who saved us from the king of Babylon and cast him to the ground, leaving him neither son nor grandson among his people — He will save us from this evil Haman. So eat of the fat and drink of sweet things; do not grieve, for Hashem is with us; do not fear them. And if Mordecai were to answer and say: "Why do you heal the wound so lightly, saying 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace? For Hashem is angry with us — angry, and He is bringing an end, if you do not return to Him — for know now that a decree of destruction has been written, God forbid" — would they not answer and say to him: "What God is doing — who told you this? This is nothing but a dream you have dreamed, and dreams speak vanity"? — they would put an end to his words, speaking vanity, and would ruin his pleasant words. Therefore his inner being urged him on: he put on sackcloth and spread ashes, and went about, going round and round, in the marketplaces and streets, with a voice of weeping and the voice of a great and bitter cry. Second, he was cunning to come as far as before the king's gate, but not to enter within — and how much more so, as our Sages of blessed memory said, that he raised his voice and swore not to remove his sackcloth from himself until Israel was saved — in order to strike fear into the heart of the children of Israel and cause it to leap from its place, by the publicizing of that dread; for now they would say, "Surely there is something to this" — for had there been a remedy to be found through the mere passing of time, as the king's disposition drew near to favor, he would not have begun now to rend his garments and cause all this dread. Thus, whatever counsel his heart might have contained, among the possibilities of answering Mordecai — saying, "Be patient, for in time this will be rectified" — he would set aside, and be silent. And the second argument, too, would be nullified by this: for if this salvation were in the hand of the king, why would Mordecai make an outcry heard in the city, and why would he clothe his flesh in sackcloth and spread ashes — rather than remove the filthy garments from himself and come to the king to entreat him? Nor would the argument "we have a sister in the king's house" [stand], for now they would say, "Behold, as for Mordecai's own words — Esther is acting as one who is in covenant with him — so why should he cease speaking to her, so that she might speak to the king?" Rather, they would say in their hearts, "This is nothing but the spirit of Hashem stirring within him, and he knows that there is no savior besides Him, blessed be He, and there is no doubt that this decree has gone forth from Hashem of Hosts." And every man of Israel would say, "Come, let us return to Hashem, for He has torn, and He will heal us; He has smitten, and He will bind us up." And there would still be room for Israel to speak and say, "Who knows whether Mordecai did this thing merely to melt our hearts, so that we should know and pursue the knowledge of Hashem" — but if he continued speaking to Esther, so that they should be saved through her, they would set the strength of their trust in flesh and blood, and their repentance would be incomplete. Therefore he was cunning to come as far as before the king's gate, clothed in sackcloth, in order to remove from the heart of the children of Israel the hope of his speaking to Esther — for now they would say, "Behold, he comes only this far and no further, and how could he speak to Esther, when she is within the king's gate, and he cannot enter, since he is clothed in sackcloth?" How much more so, according to what our Sages of blessed memory said, that he swore not to remove his sackcloth from himself until the salvation of Israel came — for by this they would despair of relying on an arm of flesh, and would call together, all of them, with all their heart, upon Him above, and He would deliver them from their distresses. And this is the meaning of "for none might enter the king's gate, etc." — meaning, you should know why he wore sackcloth and went as far as before, etc. — because none might enter the king's gate clothed in sackcloth, and by this Israel would despair of his entering there, saying, "Behold, he will come only this far and will not enter, for he cannot, since he is clothed in sackcloth, and it will not be removed from him." And therefore, in their eyes, the hope of his speaking to Esther would be lost, and they would fix their eyes upon their Creator, and through this their sentence would be torn up from before Hashem above; and then the matter would be finalized through Esther below. But without Israel's repentance preceding it — their returning to Him who smote them — what benefit would it be to them that Esther should go to the king? It would be of no avail; on the contrary, Esther would be endangering herself by coming to the king in a manner not according to the law, and the rope would follow the bucket. Therefore, after he had instilled faintheartedness in the heart of all Israel, and they had taken hold of Hashem their God, who saves them, only then did he send to her, through Hatach, that she should come to the king, as we shall explain, with the help of Heaven. And along his own approach, in crying a great and bitter cry, he intended to weaken the strength of Amalek, who is descended from Esau — for this is his power in this world, to have dominion in it, on account of his having cried a great and bitter cry before his father Isaac, as is known from our Sages of blessed memory. Therefore, correspondingly, Mordecai cried a great and bitter cry, to weaken the strength of his cry. Furthermore, Mordecai took counsel not to go in person to speak to Esther, but rather through a messenger, in secret, as will be explained — lest Israel's hands grow slack from repentance, saying, "Behold, Mordecai has spoken to Esther — why then should we grieve any further? She will save us." Therefore he concealed the matter, as will be explained. Now, there would still be room to say: what benefit did Mordecai achieve through his remedy? Did not the king's decree extend beyond the people of Shushan alone? If so, he rectified only the people of Shushan, that they should return to Hashem through all the dread that Mordecai caused among them — but what were the people in the rest of the king's provinces to do to rectify their situation? Therefore he added and said, "and in every province, wherever the king's word and his decree reached, there was mourning, etc." — for they had already been returning to Hashem, and were in fasting and weeping and lamentation, and therefore there was no need to fear for them, since they had already returned to Hashem their God. But the people of Shushan were growing slack, trusting and saying, "We have a sister in the king's house, and she will stand up for us" — for how could she bear to see the evil that would befall her people in the city of her kingdom? Therefore Mordecai needed to instill faintheartedness in their hearts and remove the trust in flesh and blood from their hearts. It is also possible to give another reason why they felt it more in every province, and this is as our Sages of blessed memory said on the verse "and your life shall hang in doubt before you, etc." Its language: Rav interpreted this verse with reference to the time of Haman: "And your life shall hang in doubt before you" — from time to time; "and you shall fear night and day" — at the time when the letters were flying about; "and you shall have no assurance of your life" — as to whether they were destined for this day. Now, these words appear devoid of sense, and one might think that, in truth, their lives hung in doubt from time to time, that is, from the thirteenth of Nisan, the time of the decree, until the thirteenth of Adar, the day appointed for its execution, which would be "from time to time" in like manner. But rather, the meaning is that, at the time when the letters were flying from Shushan to every province, they were afraid night and day, seeing the haste, fearing death, and not knowing whether a time had been given to them — and every day they were in fear and dread of death, for they did not know what was written in the documents. And when the decree was given and a proclamation was passed openly to all the peoples that they were destined for this day, the thirteenth of Adar, their minds still did not rest, even though the matter was obscure, as mentioned, in that it was not specified for what they were destined — so that they would not believe with confidence about their lives, whether it meant to be killed or something else, until the matter was revealed for the appointed day through the letters of the officials, as mentioned. Therefore, every day they were grieved, in every province, wherever the king's word and his decree reached, with great mourning and fasting and weeping and lamentation. But in Shushan there was no fear of disbelieving in their lives until the thirteenth of Adar, for the royal house would not dare to advance the time that the king had fixed. Let us return to the matter: Mordecai, in order to keep their hearts firm in repentance, caused all that dread, and put on sackcloth in order to make their hearts despair of his coming to the king's gate to speak to Esther. And on account of this, when Esther's maidens and her chamberlains came and told her, she sent garments to clothe him, etc., but he did not accept them. This was because it occurred to her mind that there was no matter pertaining to the king that was not within her power to rectify — yet she said in her heart, "He cannot come to the king's gate to tell me what troubles him while clothed in sackcloth." Therefore she sent garments to clothe Mordecai, so that he could come to the king's gate to speak to her, and she would speak to the king now that she had come to be summoned before him. She did not send to him telling him to go dress at his house, in order to hasten his coming to her — nor did she say "and to remove his sackcloth from him," for these would be superfluous words, since she was not sending him garments to clothe him while he remained in his sackcloth. Furthermore, it should have said "to remove his sackcloth" and then "to clothe Mordecai," since he was wearing sackcloth, and the sackcloth should first be removed and then the garments put on. But she said that they should clothe him in garments, and if he was not willing, that at least they should remove his sackcloth from him and he could come in his torn clothes, since one may not come clothed in sackcloth. Or one may explain that "and to remove his sackcloth" is stated after "to clothe, etc.," which reverses the order, because it was in her heart to hasten Mordecai's coming before her — for she did not want him to go to his house to put on his garments and come inside to speak with her, nor did she want him to delay in order to remove his sackcloth and put on garments — but rather she wanted Mordecai clothed in garments over the sackcloth, to cover it, so that he could come to the king's gate, since one may not come clothed in sackcloth — and afterward, when she spoke with him, to remove his sackcloth from him at her house, since she did not have the patience to wait until he removed the sackcloth and changed clothes outside. But he accepted neither of these. [This was] in order to teach the children of Israel who were with him — and Esther along with them — that there is no cure for their sickness in the hands of flesh and blood, but only in His hand, blessed be He, alone, for they had sinned against Hashem, and it was He who had decreed against them, and they should take hold of Hashem their God. For this reason he did not even speak a word to her messengers, as he spoke afterward to Hatach — to tell her and to charge her — since there were, without doubt, many of the children of Israel gathered to him at the sound of his outcry, and how much more so his disciples, who were fasting as he fasted; and if, before their eyes, he were to speak a word to her messengers — and how much more so to charge her to come to the king — they would grow slack in their repentance. Therefore he did not speak with them at all, whether good or bad. And Esther, in her wisdom, understood these things, and this is what she did: she said in her heart, "There is no doubt that there is no remedy in the hands of flesh and blood, but the matter has gone forth from Hashem, and He desires that the hands of Israel not be weakened from repentance." Therefore, she did not even speak to her own chamberlains, who were known to be the queen's chamberlains; rather, she was cunning, and called for Hatach, who was one of the king's chamberlains and not one of her own chamberlains who served her within, in order to conceal the matter, so that those who saw would not realize that it was she who had sent him. And she chose the one whom the king had appointed to stand before her, for two reasons. One: that he was not appointed to serve her, for he was great in rank, and was not one of her chamberlains designated to be attendants before her, but rather one whom the king had appointed to be present before her by way of authority — for by this, those who saw him speaking to Mordecai would not think that she had sent him, since it was not given to her to have only her own chamberlains serve and be sent. Second: so that he would be trustworthy to her, and not one to reveal a secret — how much more so if he was Daniel, as our Sages of blessed memory said. "And she charged him concerning Mordecai" [al Mordechai] is devoid of clear sense, for it should have said, "and she sent to Mordecai." And if it means that she charged him to go to him — for "charge" is an expression of urgency and immediacy — then surely it should have said "to Mordecai" and not "concerning Mordecai." Rather, it is along the lines of the verse's statement, "and He charged them unto the children of Israel and unto Pharaoh king of Egypt," concerning which our Rabbis of blessed memory said that He charged Moses and Aaron to conduct themselves with Israel gently, and with Pharaoh to treat him with honor — meaning that Israel and Pharaoh would be commanded, and would come, in their [Moses and Aaron's] view. And along these lines one might say the same here — except that there it says "unto" and not "concerning," meaning that Israel and Pharaoh would be [the ones] commanded regarding them; but here, where it says "concerning," in "and she charged him concerning Mordecai," it means that the charge to Hatach was placed with respect to Mordecai — that he should regard him with importance. This is because she saw that her first messengers had not been regarded with importance, even to the extent of speaking a word to them — he had merely refused to accept anything from their hand. Therefore she was concerned lest they do the same to Hatach as well, and he not reveal to him all his heart, in order to speak to her. Therefore, "she charged Hatach concerning Mordecai," that he regard him with importance, so as to tell him — and this would take place through his being the one who first carried the garments (though it does not mention who carried the garments), since she did not send them except in a manner of feigned unfamiliarity, so that onlookers would not know that the matter came from her, as it was not done through her own chamberlains or those known to be hers. And Mordecai likewise did not conceal anything from him, and told him all his heart. This is the meaning of "she charged him concerning Mordecai" — and why was the charge "to know, etc."? For if he did not regard him with importance, he would not reveal to him "what this was and wherefore this was." And the matter of "what this" is, namely: "what was this distress, and for what reason was this, what was its cause" — meaning: if the cause is from Heaven — that is, that they fought through matters of sin that prevailed, and therefore you did not come to me, since you see that it will not be rectified through her — she therefore added the question "and for what reason." And how fitting are the words of our Rabbis of blessed memory along this line, saying, "Perhaps Israel transgressed regarding this and regarding that, for they were written" — meaning: since you did not accept the garments, so that you might enter to reveal your reason to my ears, this can only be because perhaps they transgressed the Ten Commandments, and therefore there is no remedy except through Israel's returning to Hashem their God. Or one may explain: "what is this distress, and for what reason is it, that you did this — refusing to accept the garments to come to the king's gate and tell me, and also not speaking a word to my messengers?" For even though she understood it in her own mind, she wanted to know from his own mouth. Now, Hatach was even more cunning, in that he did not go to Mordecai as a messenger, so that onlookers would not sense that he had been sent by the queen; rather, he made himself appear as though acting of his own accord, and approached Mordecai to speak to him, so that he would tell him all that had befallen him. And this is the meaning of "and Hatach went out unto Mordecai, etc." — it does not say "and Hatach went to Mordecai," but only "and he went out, etc.," for he made himself appear as though acting of his own accord. And then "Mordecai told him, etc."

The Questions: What is the novelty in that Mordecai "knew," seeing that the decree was revealed to all peoples? And even if he knew about the matter of the money [Haman's silver], this makes no practical difference to the essence of the matter, once he saw that the decree had been finalized. Why did he go out to cry in the streets of the city — this is the way of fools; should he not rather have sought counsel with wisdom, rather than stirring up the whole city? "And Mordecai [knew]" — "He who sits in the heavens laughs" (Psalms 2:4). Despite all the schemes that Haman devised so that the matter would remain a secret, the matter became known to Mordecai through Hashem's providence, and he knew all the things that had passed between him and the king, and likewise how he had deceived the king, and all his machinations and stratagems. And with this he prepared himself for two things: first, that he tore his garments and put on sackcloth and ashes for repentance and prayer, to draw forth the favor of Him in whose hand is the heart of kings; and afterward, for natural means. And his first counsel was that the matter should not remain secret, but that it should become known both to the nations of the lands and to the king, for through this advocates would arise to nullify the matter. Therefore he went out into the streets of the city and cried out, to gather the multitudes to himself, so that the matter would become publicized.

"Now Mordecai knew all that was done" (Esther 4:1). One may ask: did Mordecai alone know this? Is it not written above (3:15), "and the city of Shushan was perplexed" — so everyone knew! It appears that the explanation is this: the letters did not spell out in them that Haman had requested this matter from the king, for it would not have been proper to write such a thing in the letters. Rather, they wrote only that the law had been given to kill them and destroy them (above 3:13-15). "Now Mordecai knew all that was done" — that is, he knew how these things had come about through Haman, and therefore "he cried out with a loud and bitter cry," once he knew that this had come about through Haman. For we explained above that had the decree come from King Ahasuerus himself, he would not have been so frightened, since the essential purpose of a king is to give his people life, and not to put them to death. But when he knew that it was Haman who had done all this, and that he is [merely] a man and not a king, and that it is for this reason that this man seeks to swallow up everything — how much more so since he is "Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of the Jews" (above 3:10), who was well acquainted with his family and his ancestors, [knowing] that they had been a painful thorn and a stinging brier to Israel from of old. And in the Gemara they said (Megillah 15a): "Now Mordecai knew all that was done" — what was "done"? Rav said: that Haman's heart had grown haughtier than Ahasuerus's. Some say: [haughty] against Ahasuerus. Rav Shimi bar Chiya said: the Higher King was exalted above the lower king, for the latter did not execute justice. The explanation is: it should not have said "Mordecai knew that it was done" [in this way] — for if it meant to say that he knew that all Israel had been given over to be destroyed and slain, that cannot be the meaning, for did Mordecai alone know this? Everyone knew! And it should simply have written "Mordecai cried a loud and bitter cry." Therefore they explained that when Mordecai heard of this matter, he knew that Haman's heart had grown haughtier than Ahasuerus's, for Ahasuerus would not have done such a thing — to destroy an entire nation. But Haman's heart grew haughtier than Ahasuerus's. And according to the view that says "Haman's heart grew haughty against Ahasuerus" — since he had requested of him something that was not fitting for Ahasuerus to do, as we have said, that it is not fitting for a king to do such a thing, in this Haman's heart grew haughty against Ahasuerus, [seeking] to be greater than him by doing something unfitting. And because Mordecai saw such a novel thing, one that departs from the way of the world, he feared that Haman might bring the thought of his heart into action, to destroy an entire nation, strange as such a thing is. And Rav Shimi held that "the Higher King was exalted, etc." The explanation is that this was a great novelty in Mordecai's eyes, when he saw that Haman had written letters to destroy, kill, and annihilate all the Jews, and yet the Holy One, blessed be He, was not executing judgment against him — as if, Heaven forbid, the lower king had become exalted. Therefore Mordecai was afraid, for since the Holy One, blessed be He, was not executing judgment against him, the sin must be so great that he [Haman] would carry his plan through to completion, whatever he wished. Therefore, "Mordecai rent his clothes." "Mordecai rent his clothes." In the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, here, 1056): Benjamin caused the tribes to rend [their garments] — this is what is written (Genesis 44:13), "and they rent their garments." And where did this tearing come back upon him? In Shushan the capital, as it is written, "Mordecai rent his clothes" — for he was a Benjaminite (above 2:5). "And put on sackcloth and ashes, etc." Rabbi Ivo said: since our father Jacob took hold of the sackcloth, as it is written (Genesis 37:34), "and he put sackcloth on his loins," it never again departed from his descendants. Of Ahab it is written (I Kings 21:27), "and he put sackcloth on his flesh." Of Joram his son (II Kings 6:30), "and the people saw, and behold, the sackcloth was on his flesh." Of Mordecai: "and he put on sackcloth and ashes." "And he cried a loud and bitter cry" — Rabbi Chana said: whoever says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is lenient [and lets sin go unpunished] — may his own innards spill out; rather, He is slow to anger, and then He collects what is due Him. Know this, for Jacob cried out one cry against Esau, as it is written (Genesis 27:34), "and he cried a great cry" — and when was payment exacted from him for this? In the days of Mordecai, as it is written, "and he cried a loud and bitter cry." The explanation: the rending [of garments] is an absolute legal requirement to tear one's clothes, and there is nothing more extreme than the rending itself. Therefore it comes only in response to an act of complete loss that has [already] occurred. But here nothing had yet happened over which Mordecai should have torn [his garments]. If so, how did this act come from the righteous Mordecai? Therefore they expounded that Benjamin was the cause of this, for he had caused the tribes to tear [their garments]. And even though Benjamin himself did nothing, nevertheless it came about through him — and guilt is brought about only through one who is [already] guilty (Shabbat 32a). Therefore "Mordecai rent his clothes" — meaning to say that even though this rending was not entirely fitting, since there was not yet any actual loss here, and rending comes only in response to loss, it was only because Benjamin his ancestor had caused the tribes to rend [their garments] that this rending now came about. Rabbi Abba said: since our father Jacob took hold of the sackcloth, it never departed from his children (Esther Rabbah 8:1). This comes also to resolve the difficulty of what is written (Genesis 37:34), "and he put sackcloth on his loins" — since nothing very great had yet occurred to warrant putting on sackcloth, as though an act of loss had occurred. And regarding this it says, "since Jacob our father took hold to wear the sackcloth." And the matter is this: troubles cling to Jacob just as sackcloth clings to a person and adheres to him — so troubles cling to Jacob. And so it says (Genesis 43:14), "El Shaddai" — that He said to His world, "enough" [dai], so may He say to my trouble, "enough" (Rashi, ad loc.). And therefore it also says (Psalms 20:2), "May Hashem answer you on the day of trouble; may the name of the God of Jacob set you up on high" — and they said in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Psalms 680) that it does not say "the God of Abraham," because Jacob was singled out for trouble. Therefore Jacob put sackcloth on his flesh, to indicate that troubles cling and adhere to him more [than to others]. And since troubles are close to him, the sackcloth never departed from his children, for troubles are close to his children as well — since a matter that clings entirely to the father does not depart from his offspring, and the son inherits it. And because Benjamin is called "Ben Oni" [son of my sorrow] (Genesis 35:18), and he was born amid his mother's suffering, he is therefore more disposed to have inherited this matter from his forebears. Therefore Mordecai, who is "a Benjaminite" (above 2:5), wore sackcloth. And these matters you must understand very well. And how much more so, since the cause was that Jacob had made Esau cry out, as it is written (here), "and he cried a loud and bitter cry." And this too is the explanation: that his crying "a loud and bitter cry" is something exceedingly extraordinary, a great deviation [from the natural order], and it is not fitting that such a thing — something so extraordinary, something very strange — should befall a righteous man. Rather, it was because Jacob had caused Esau to cry out "a loud and bitter cry" that Haman, who is of the seed of Esau, likewise caused Jacob to cry out "a loud and bitter cry." For anything that befalls a righteous man which departs from the [normal] order, being as great a deviation as this, requires a cause; for otherwise, such a thing — something that departs from the order of the world — would not befall a righteous man. And all the more so, since we find that Benjamin caused the rending [of garments] for the tribes, and now the rending came upon Benjamin['s descendant] — so that the two can be linked to each other. And likewise, since we find that Jacob caused a great and bitter cry for Esau, and here Esau [through Haman] caused the cry for Jacob, that is, for his descendants — so that the two can be linked to each other.

For one could not enter. It is improper to enter the king’s gate dressed in sackcloth.

"For none might enter within the king's gate clothed with sackcloth" — because that is a mark of disgrace in the kingdom.

The Questions: Why did he come as far as the king's gate? "And he came" — afterward he came before the king's gate, so that the matter would become known in the king's court, whether to Esther or to the king himself. As for "for none might enter" — there are two intentions in this: first, that for this reason he did not enter within; second, that for this reason it was a novel thing that he stood in sackcloth before the gate, since it was not customary to walk about in sackcloth even in that place, and so it would become known/publicized in the king's court.

The king’s directives and bylaws. When the couriers carrying the letters passed, the edict was given in the city.

"And wailing" (mispped) — lamentations. "Was laid out" (yutza) — is from the heavy, doubled, augmented conjugation [Huf'al], with the missing letter being a yod, like the yod in "atzok mayim" ("I will pour out water," Isaiah 44:3); but the correct [view] to me is that the yod is a root letter, like the yod in [the example] "asher yivvaled lo" ("who was born to him"), and it is from the heavy, doubled conjugation [Pu'al] whose active form is not used. There is, in the words of a single [commentator], [an opinion] that Hatach is Daniel; but what is closer to my view is that his days did not extend to the reign of Ahasuerus, for he was old, and the eminence of wisdom does not depart.

The Questions: Does not this verse's proper place belong above, right after "the couriers went out, hastened" (3:15), since it was through the couriers that it became known to everyone? Why does it not say here "and in every city," as it says below (Esther 8:17)? And why does it repeat "the king's command and his decree"? "And in every [province]" — before Mordecai publicized the matter, no one knew of it. But after Mordecai stirred up the city and all that filled it, the matter spread from person to person to particular places throughout every province, for the matter became known to no one except through Mordecai's outcry (since the letters that had been sent were sealed). This is why it says "the king's command and his decree came" — meaning, to the place where the decree itself also became known, namely, what was written in the sealed letters. Therefore it does not say here "in every city," because the matter did not reach every place, only one city in each province. But great was the repentance, prayer, and mourning among the Jews.

"And in every province, etc." (verse 3). This verse is juxtaposed here, even though logically the verses (verse 2) "and he came in front of the king's gate" and (verse 4) "and Esther's maidens came and told her" should have been placed adjacent to one another — for "he came to the king's gate" was what caused Esther's maidens to hear and tell Esther, so the verse "and Esther's maidens came" ought to have followed directly after it. But [the reason it does not] is that the verse stating "and he came to the king's gate" was so that Esther's maidens would tell Queen Esther; and one might have thought that what the verse stated (verse 1), "and he put on sackcloth and ashes," was likewise so that they would tell Esther that Mordechai had put on sackcloth and ashes. But this is not so, for in every province they did the same. Rather, only his coming to the king's gate (verse 2) was in order that this be told to Esther, but the essential reason he put on sackcloth and ashes was entirely on account of mourning and grief, and not so that it would be told to Esther. "And in every province, etc." Here it does not mention the tearing [of garments], for tearing applies only when one hears bad news, and it is on account of that [moment of hearing] that the tearing occurs. Thus Mordechai, when he heard the report, tore his garments (above, verse 1). But here it is not speaking of what they did at the moment they heard the report; rather, it speaks of the fact that they were observing fasting and lamentation, and to this, tearing does not apply.

"And she was seized with anguish" (vatitchalchal) — from the same root as "chil achaz yoshvei feleshet" ("trembling has gripped the inhabitants of Philistia," Exodus 15:14), among the geminate [doubled-root] verbs.

The Questions: After she sent garments for him to wear, isn't it obvious that he would remove his sackcloth? "And [the maidens] came" — because Mordecai had come to the king's gate, [Esther] sent, wanting to hear the matter from Mordecai's own mouth, what this was. And she sent garments for him to wear over the sackcloth, so that he would remove his sackcloth from being seen upon him, in such a way that it would not be over his garments but under his garments, and he would be able to enter the king's gate. But he did not accept it, because he did not want to interrupt his supplications for even a moment, since this would be like forsaking his trust in Hashem and relying instead on the help of flesh and blood.

"And the maidens came, etc." (verse 4) — What is written, "and Esther's maidens and her chamberlains came," is meant to convey the greatness of the alarm that came upon her when all these arrived at once in this way — this was something unprecedented — and therefore "she trembled greatly [vatitchalchal]." And one should not raise the difficulty of why Esther did not know beforehand, for "the king's daughter is all glorious within" (Psalms 45:14), and all the more so Queen Esther, whose whole conduct was in modesty; the queen knew nothing at all of these matters, and therefore "the queen trembled greatly [vatitchalchal me'od]." And the fact that it is not written "the queen was greatly alarmed [vatibahel ha-malkah me'od]" but rather this word — this indicates the greatness of the alarm; therefore "vatitchalchal" is a doubled expression, for every doubling indicates the greatness of the matter. This too was a cause from Hashem, may He be blessed: when the matter became known through Mordecai, who cried out a great and bitter cry and put on sackcloth, Esther would tremble, as indeed happened, and therefore Esther would do whatever could be done, as she indeed did. And this would not have been so had Esther learned of it on her own. And in the Gemara (Megillah 15a): "And Esther's maidens came, etc." — what is [the meaning of] "vatitchalchal"? Rav said: she menstruated [became niddah]. Shmuel said: she needed to relieve herself. And one might wonder what difference it makes in this whether she menstruated [became niddah] or needed to relieve herself. The explanation of this matter is that it means to say that when Esther heard this news, foreign forces gained mastery over her. For when she heard that Haman sought to rise and rule, this brought it about — according to the one who says Esther became niddah — that the forces of impurity (tum'ah) gained dominion over her, just as they come to dominate Israel, and through this she knew that the forces of impurity were gaining strength in the world; and all this was so that Esther would be quick to do whatever could be done. And the one who says she needed to relieve herself likewise held that the forces of impurity had gained strength, only he said that this came about from a different angle: her being in need of relieving herself is the aspect of the repulsive (ha-ma'us). And this matter pertains more to the external forces of the repulsive and the abominable, as it is written, "You shall utterly detest it" (Deuteronomy 7:26). And these two things in particular pertain to idolatry: impurity is one matter, and the repulsive likewise pertains to the forces of impurity, and this needs no proof. And the one who says she needed to relieve herself attributes the abominable and the repulsive to idolatry more [directly], and therefore he said that when these forces gained strength she needed to relieve herself, for the filth and repulsiveness gained mastery over her. And according to the one who says she became niddah, when the forces gained strength, impurity gained mastery, and she became niddah. And these two views are distinct from one another, and this is known to the discerning. And there is a further explanation of this: when Esther heard this report she was alarmed, and this alarm produced a change in Esther. According to the one who says she became niddah — we have already said above that blood derives from the soul (nefesh) — meaning that the alarm produced a change in the forces of her soul. And the one who says she needed to relieve herself held that the alarm produced a change in her body, and her bodily needs pertain more to the body. And their dispute is over which is quicker to undergo change — the soul or the body — and each view has its reasoning and rationale. And we have explained this matter above as well, regarding the case where leprosy (tzara'at) broke out upon her, and it is similar to this. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 8:3) it says: "the queen trembled greatly [vatitchalchal ha-malkah]" — she was pregnant and miscarried, and thereafter did not bear children. And the view of this Midrash is that since it is written "vatitchalchal" without qualification, an unqualified [instance of] chalchalah brings about the miscarriage of a child. And this happened to her because, since Ahasuerus did this thing — to destroy and kill Israel — it was not fitting that he should have a name in Israel, that he should have offspring among them. And therefore the child with which she was pregnant she miscarried, and thereafter did not bear children, for this reason: that it is not fitting that his seed be among Israel. For [ordinarily], a gentile or a slave who comes upon a Jewish woman — the child is legitimate (kasher) (Yevamot 45a). And even though he later relented and turned [the decree] against Haman, this change did not come from Ahasuerus himself, but rather from the fact that the hand of Hashem, may He be blessed, brought this about; but he himself, in his wickedness, remained so from beginning to end. But before Ahasuerus carried out Haman's wish, Hashem, may He be blessed, gave her a child from Ahasuerus, and when he did this [decreed against Israel], she miscarried and thereafter did not conceive again. But when you understand the truth of the matter, [you will see] that Rav and Shmuel disagree as to which force gained mastery over her when Esther heard that the forces of impurity and the forces of the abominable had grown strong — each according to his own view. And the "some say" [view] mentioned in the Midrash, which said that she miscarried — the view of this "some say" is that privation (he'eder) gained mastery through this, and therefore she miscarried, and the child was utterly negated. And certainly these forces have privation clinging to them, and they bring about privation, and they are a cause of it. Understand these things. "And she sent garments to clothe Mordecai and to remove his sackcloth" — surely Esther knew that he did not lack garments; why then did she send for him to be clothed? Rather, she said that he should remove his sackcloth and put on garments and come to the king's gate to tell her what these matters were about. And she did not say that he should go to his house and put on other garments, for Esther, because of the greatness of the alarm, did not want to wait so long. And Mordecai did not accept this, for if he had, it would appear that he had put on the sackcloth at first only in order to inform Esther of the trouble, and not on account of mourning and distress. [But] now it would appear that the wearing of the sackcloth was for the sake of repentance (teshuvah). And further, this is why he did not accept it: he did not want to turn back from this repentance even for a single hour. For this sackcloth clings to his flesh, and once he had accepted upon himself to wear the sackcloth, it was fitting that it cling to him completely. As it says in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 8:1): and because Jacob took hold of the sackcloth, as it is said (Genesis 37:34), "and he put sackcloth on his loins," therefore the sackcloth did not depart from his descendants. And all this is because the sackcloth clings to a person's flesh more [than other garments do], and this indicates that the troubles of Israel are constant, for they pursue them and cling [to them] like this sackcloth, which clings to his flesh. Therefore also, when Mordecai put on sackcloth on account of King Ahasuerus's decree against his people, he would not remove the sackcloth from himself until Hashem, may He be blessed, removed the decree. And so they said in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, ad loc., remez 1056): "'And she sent garments to clothe Mordecai and to remove the sackcloth from upon him, but he did not accept it' — he said: I will not move the sackcloth until the Holy One, blessed be He, performs miracles as He did for the earlier ones." Regarding Jacob it is written (Genesis 37:34), "and he put sackcloth on his loins." And with Ahab, [the sackcloth] was not removed for three years. And likewise with Jehoram, the famine did not consume his sackcloth from Samaria. And all this, as we have said, is because it clings to his flesh, and this indicates the trouble that clings to him. And had he removed the sackcloth, which was fitting to cling to his flesh, it would appear that he had turned away from repentance entirely. Therefore he did not want to remove the sackcloth.

The Questions: Why did she choose Hathach? And "whom he had appointed to attend upon her" is superfluous. The expression "and she charged him concerning Mordecai" (va-tetzavehu al Mordechai) is not grammatically precise, for a command construed with "al" (concerning/over) indicates that one person is to oversee or be appointed over some other matter, and it should have said "and she sent him to Mordecai." And what is the doubling of "what this was" and "why it was"? "And [Esther] called" — after she understood that there was a hidden secret in this matter, she sent for Hathach, who was to her "a faithful spirit that conceals a matter," for he was one of the king's chamberlains whom he had appointed to attend upon her specifically, and he was her confidant. And since she did not know whether Mordecai would trust him enough to reveal his secrets to him, therefore it says "she charged him concerning Mordecai" — meaning, that he should investigate the cause of the matter indirectly. And she also charged him to inquire "what this was" and "why it was," in the manner of a skilled physician who comes to heal an illness and investigates the nature of the illness, and also the cause on account of which the illness came — that is, the evil itself, and also its cause — for it is impossible to remove the effect unless the cause is first eliminated. And so explained Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi (Maharei Ashkenazi).

"Then Esther called for Hathach" (verse 5) — in the Gemara (Megillah 15a), Rav says: "Hathach" — this is Daniel; and why was he called "Hathach"? Because they cut him down (chatchuhu) from his greatness. And Shmuel says: [he was called Hathach] because all matters of the kingdom were cut off — that is, decided — by his word. [End of Gemara quotation.] Explanation: according to Rav, he was called "Hathach" because they cut him off and removed him from his greatness. And the reason [the verse] did not state explicitly "Daniel" is to indicate the wickedness of Ahasuerus, who elevated the wicked Haman (above, 3:1) and removed the righteous Daniel from his greatness; for such is the way of the wicked person, that he elevates the wicked and lowers the righteous. And according to Shmuel there is no reason to think that the righteous man descended from his greatness; rather, [Hathach was so called] only because all matters of the kingdom were decided by his word. And the Gemara reasons precisely that it was Daniel, for otherwise it should not have said "Then she called for Hathach," since we would not know who this Hathach is, for he is not mentioned anywhere [else]; rather, certainly there is an explanation for the word "Hathach," as [the Gemara] said. And it is possible to say that the one who said that all decrees of the kingdom were decided by his word held that he was not Daniel at all, but rather that "Hathach" mentioned here is a certain important man by whose word all decrees of the kingdom were decided. And Shmuel came only to explain the wording "Then Esther called for Hathach" — for behold, we would not know who he is — and therefore he explains that he was someone by whose word all decrees of the kingdom were decided. And Esther chose him specifically in order to make known through this to Mordecai that this matter was considered by her to be of great [significance] — "to know what this was and why it was." And had she sent someone else to him, it would have appeared that this matter was not considered so [significant] by Esther, but merely like a person who wants to know all matters. Therefore she sent Hathach, by whose word all decrees of the kingdom were decided, to indicate that this matter was considered by her to be very [significant], and on account of this, they would also know that the trouble was very great, and would do great repentance (teshuvah). "to know what this was and why it was" — the doubled language means to say: [to know] what this was — that he wore sackcloth — and why it was — that he cried a great and bitter cry. And furthermore, it appears that the doubled language is for emphasis, meaning that this matter was utterly wondrous, wonder upon wonder (based on Isaiah 14:14) — the putting on of the sackcloth — and this is the doubled language that serves to strengthen the matter, everywhere [it is found]. And the Targum translated "what this was" as referring to his wearing sackcloth, and "why it was" as referring to his not accepting the garments [she sent him]. And in the Gemara (Megillah 15a) Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha said: She sent to him [to ask] whether Israel had transgressed the five books of the Torah, for it is written regarding it (Exodus 32:15), "On this side and on that were they written." And the explanation of this matter is: when she saw the harsh and severe decree that had arisen against Israel, the like of which had never been, to destroy and annihilate Israel, she said, "Perhaps this decree came about because Israel transgressed the Torah" — for the Torah consists of decrees from Hashem, may He be blessed, clarified and decreed by a decree from Him. Therefore it is written concerning it, "written on both their sides, on this side and on that were they written." And this was for a very sublime reason: for the Torah is the clear intellect, and it is intellect that is completely transcendent (nivdal), a clear intellect. And therefore they were written on both their sides, for the writing on both sides is the complete clarification, indicating a transcendent intellect — that this transcendent intellect has no attachment to physical matter. This is not so when [something] is not written on both its sides, and the writing is engraved through only partially, and not engraved through completely, for that does not indicate a completely clear intellect. Rather, this is comparable to an intellect that is embedded in matter, like the intellect of man, which is not a wholly intellectual [entity], but rather the intellect stands embedded in matter and has a substrate, which is the matter. And because it has a substrate, which is the matter, it is not a clear intellect. Therefore, if it were not engraved from both sides, that part which is not engraved would be like a substrate for the engraved part, and this indicates something that is not completely transcendent, but only a certain [degree of] intellect, and is not transcendent. But the Torah is engraved from side to side, indicating that there is no substrate here at all, and this indicates an intellect completely separate from physicality. This matter is explained in its place [elsewhere]. And because Esther saw that a decree of complete annihilation had been decreed against Israel, and it was a complete decree, "to destroy and to slay, etc." (above, 3:13) — and not like other calamities, where, when calamity came upon them, it was only a partial calamity in some respect, and not a complete annihilation as it was here — therefore she said: perhaps it was on account of this, that they transgressed the words of the Torah, of which it is written "on this side and on that were they written," meaning that they were written on both their sides, and there is here nothing partial, only complete; and therefore one who transgresses the words of the Torah is liable to complete destruction. For just as they are written on both their sides, being completely clarified — because of the transcendent intellect, which is completely clear — so too the judgment upon them is likewise a complete judgment, which is complete annihilation; since they transgressed the entire Torah, which is a complete decree, therefore a complete decree came upon them: complete annihilation. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 8:4) they said in this language: "'And she charged him concerning Mordecai, to know what this was and why it was' — she said, never in their days had Israel come to a trouble like this one; perhaps Israel denied 'This is my God and I will glorify Him' (Exodus 15:2), or perhaps they denied the Tablets, of which it is written (Exodus 32:15), 'On this side and on that were they written.'" [End of Midrash quotation.] And the explanation of this Midrash is thus: Esther said that the reason complete annihilation was decreed against them was because they had denied the fundamental principle (ikkar) of everything; and one who denies the fundamental principle is uprooted from the fundamental principle entirely, and this is complete annihilation. And as for what they said, "Perhaps they denied the Tablets, of which it is said, 'On this side and on that were they written,'" its explanation is as we have said: when they deny the Tablets — and the Tablets are necessarily obligatory, compelled [to exist], for they are pure intellect, and in particular the Tablets, which are first of the entire Torah and are a completely supernal intellect — therefore it is written of them (Exodus 32:15), "On this side and on that were they written"; and when they deny them, they are liable to destruction. And know further, that for both [explanations] — both what they said, that they denied "this is my God," and what they said, that they denied the Tablets, of which it is written "on this side and that were they written" — it is all one reason. For the word "zeh" ["this"] in "this is my God" indicates that He, may He be blessed, exists (nimtza); for that is the implication of the word "zeh" — that this is what exists before you. And He is called by the term "zeh" because He is the Necessary Existent completely. And because he denies something that is necessary, annihilation is fitting for him, since he denies the thing that is necessary. And likewise the Tablets, of which it is said, "on this side and that were they written," indicate that they have existence to the point that it is impossible for it to be otherwise; and therefore, if they denied the Tablets — since the Tablets necessarily and compellingly must exist, and they denied them — complete annihilation was decreed upon them, that they should not exist at all, God forbid, since they denied something whose existence is necessary. And there is nothing whose existence is more necessary than Hashem, may He be blessed, who is the Necessary Existent, and the Ten Commandments, which are necessitated from Hashem, may He be blessed. And therefore the Tablets were written on both their sides, on this side and that, as has been explained, and it is impossible for anything in them to be otherwise. And one who denies them, he himself does not exist at all.

"The broad place of the city" — to investigate the matter.

"So Hathach went forth, etc." (verse 6) — That is to say, he went into the midst (tokh) of the city [a wordplay on the name Hathach/Hatakh, which contains the word tokh, "midst"], for Mordecai could not come to the king's gate clothed in sackcloth (above, verse 2). Now, as for Hathach going to a place far from the king's gate: a person of importance like Hathach would not go alone to a distant place; he would need to take his servants with him. But [Mordecai] did not want anyone else to hear the words that Mordecai would say to him. Therefore it states that he went to the open square (rechov) at the king's gate, which is nearby — so that he was able to go there alone, without anyone else with him, for this could not even be called "a journey" [requiring an escort].

And of the silver. The explanation of the silver. — Notes: (3) Mordechai wanted to make it clear to Esther that the king could not be bribed. He therefore provided her with an explanation of the silver, i.e., that Achashveirosh was reluctant to accept the 10,000 silver kikars offered by Haman.

"The exact sum" (parashat) — from the root meaning "to specify to them" (lifros lahem), in that he specified to the officers the matter of the money. "Concerning the Jews" (ba-yehudim) — for the sake of the Jews. "To destroy them" (le'abbedam) — the sense is to blot out their name.

Before we come to the explanation of the verses, let us preface that from the statements of our Sages, may their memory be blessed, in Midrash Chazit (Song of Songs Rabbah), it appears that Mordecai's heart was steadfast, confident of Israel's salvation. And the first statement is as follows: 'At the time when those letters were sealed — sealed by Haman's hand — he came rejoicing, he and all the members of his group, and they encountered Mordecai, who was walking ahead of them. Mordecai saw three children coming from school, and Mordecai ran after them. When Haman and all his group saw Mordecai running after the children, they went after Mordecai to find out what Mordecai would ask them. Once Mordecai reached the children, he asked one of them, "Recite your verse to me." He said to him, "Do not fear sudden terror, nor the destruction of the wicked when it comes" (Proverbs 3:25). The second one opened and said, "I read today, and it was with this verse that I stopped at school: 'Devise a plan, and it will be foiled; speak a word, and it will not stand, for God is with us'" (Isaiah 8:10). The third one opened and said, "'Even to your old age I am the same, and to your graying years I will carry you; I have made, and I will bear; I will carry and rescue'" (Isaiah 46:4). When Mordecai heard this, he laughed and rejoiced with great joy. Haman said to him, "What is this joy that you rejoiced at these children's words?" He said, "It is over the good tidings they brought me, that I should not fear the evil plan you devised against us." Haman immediately grew angry and said, "I will send my hand first against none but these children."' So far [the Midrash]. And it is fitting to pay attention to the significance of these three verses that He, may He be blessed, placed in the children's mouths — one would have sufficed, since they are all one matter. Further, what is different about the second one from the first, and from the third, that he said 'I read today,' etc. — for it was not by chance; and even if it had happened to him by chance, why would our Sages, may their memory be blessed, need to relate something of no benefit? But there is no doubt that He, may He be blessed, placed these words in the boy's mouth to speak these things concerning the hint that was being hinted to him, and it was not for nothing. Let us also turn our attention to their interconnection — since he asked only the first one, and the second one opened on his own, and likewise the third — this shows that the standing of all three is one. And according to our approach, let us pay attention to Mordecai's reply when he said, 'They brought me good tidings that I should not fear the calamity' — which combined the words of the two youths, the first and the second: in saying 'that I should not fear,' this is [from] 'do not fear,' etc.; and in saying 'the calamity,' this is the second verse, 'devise a plan,' etc. — but not the third verse, which explicitly says 'and rescue' — for [had he meant that] he would have said to him, 'They brought me good tidings that I should not fear, for He, may He be blessed, will rescue me from your hand.' Now, in the book Chavatzelet HaSharon we wrote that one who is good before God — his heart is secure, and he will not fear any of the evils that stir to come into the world, whether from the mouth of a lion or the like, or if he encounters fire or water or the like — for he will speak and Hashem will hear, for his cry will be heard by God. But there are two evils harder than these to guard against: one, sudden terror — for before he even knows that the evil is coming, if he has already preceded it with prayer, it is already upon him and he cannot escape, for it has been decreed irrevocably. Two, one who sees himself delivered into the hand of a person possessing free choice — for there is no remedy, since, because choice is free, He, may He be blessed, will not prevent him from what he has plotted to do. And behold, these two evils were found here, and here they were present in this wicked Haman: one, that the matter was sudden, without delay — for before the matter was known, in what seemed like a single moment, 'he spoke to the king,' and 'the king's scribes were summoned,' etc., and 'the law was given in Shushan' — and also in heaven above, by the time the matter became known to Mordecai, the letter of destruction had already been written, so that it was hard to reverse what had happened — the sentence of the evil deed was carried out swiftly. And likewise the second — for behold, they were delivered into the hand of a person possessing free choice, and the deliverance was as difficult to achieve as overcoming death itself. Behold, these two were established together here, and over each of them his heart would tremble and leap from its place. And behold, from Him, may He be blessed, it was ordained to save them from both — but only after they would suffer intensely and return to Hashem, for they had sinned against Him. And the fitting response, from Him, may He be blessed, would have been to tell him immediately that trouble would come upon them, but that in the end Hashem would deliver them through repentance. However, out of His love, may He be blessed, for Mordecai, He told him only little by little. First, they gladdened him with joy, by saying to him, 'Do not fear sudden terror' — that is the first of the two evils which he feared; and as for the second, 'nor the destruction of the wicked when it comes' — that is the delivering of them into the hand of wicked men possessing free choice. And lest he think that there would be no suffering at all, but that immediately, easily, the salvation would come of itself — and so he would slacken his hand from bringing Israel back to Hashem — the second one opened and said, 'I read today, and it was with this verse that I stopped at school: devise a plan, and it will be foiled,' etc. — for Hashem's name was in his mouth, and this expression was to hint to him that he should turn his attention to the preceding verses and to the fact that this would be their end and conclusion. And that is because earlier it is stated, 'and he shall sweep through Judah, he shall overflow and pass through, he shall reach even to the neck,' etc.; 'make an uproar, O peoples, and be broken in pieces,' etc.; 'devise a plan,' etc. (Isaiah 8:8-10). And the matter, according to the interpretation of Radak, of blessed memory, is that the king of Babylon would bring about a great trouble, reaching 'to the neck' — that is, Jerusalem — that he would bring them into siege and distress. And He, may He be blessed, says, 'make an uproar, O peoples' — subdue Israel; but to capture them entirely there is no fear, only 'and be broken in pieces' — meaning, gird yourselves against Israel; and afterward, 'and be broken in pieces' — for you shall not prevail over them; rather, on the contrary, 'devise a plan, and it will be foiled,' etc. — in such a way that the sense of the verses is that they will oppress Israel but will not conquer them, since God's own counsel will foil their plan. Similarly, this hinted that the same thing would happen to Israel also in the days of Mordecai — that Haman would oppress Israel and they would suffer intensely, but in the end, what the king and Haman devised would be foiled. And so it was — for waters came up to the neck, distress reached the throat, and in every province, wherever the king's word and his decree reached, there was great mourning among the Jews, and fasting, and weeping, and lamentation, and sackcloth and ashes. And also, as our Sages of blessed memory said, every Persian who encountered a Jew in Shushan would strangle him and say to him, 'Tomorrow I will kill you and take your property' — but after the trouble, the enemy's plan would be foiled. And this is [the meaning of] 'I read today, and it was with this verse that I stopped' — meaning, look at what preceded, which I read today, and look at this verse at which I stopped in school, for this is the stopping-point of the course of the preceding verses — in such a way that you should look at all of this, as stated. And it was still possible that Mordecai would say: since 'God is with us,' even though we see suffering being stirred up, let us pay no heed, for in the end 'God is with us' to foil the plan of our enemies — and by this, Israel's repentance would become slack, in saying, 'There is no more need for prayer and repentance to Hashem, for God is with us; we need only speak to the king, and Hashem will grant us favor and mercy in his eyes, and we will be saved.' And if so, the salvation would be void — for behold, the matter went forth from Hashem of Hosts, and destruction was decreed in writing, and therefore one must return to the One who struck him, and without Him there is no remedy. Therefore the third one opened and said, 'Even to your old age I am the same,' etc., 'I have made, and I will bear,' etc. — to say, now know that 'I have made,' etc., for He, may He be blessed, does all these things — meaning, that therefore no cure will come to you except from Him, may He be blessed, when you turn back to Him for mercy. And not only that, but 'I will carry you in your trouble,' for 'in all their trouble,' etc., until you are set right, and afterward, 'and rescue' — and this is [the meaning of] 'I will carry, and rescue.' And when Haman asked, 'What did the child say to you?' Mordecai concealed from him the fact that this matter had come from Hashem, may He be blessed, and that He would rescue them, as stated in the third verse, so that Haman should not be put to shame through it. Or one might explain, 'the first one opened,' etc., as follows: there were two fears in Israel's hands — one, lest their enemies not restrain their power and would not wait until the thirteenth of Adar, but would arise suddenly to destroy them, etc.; two, the fear that even if they do wait, perhaps the matter would not be rectified in the meantime, and Israel would be readied for exile. Thus there were two evils: one, sudden terror, that all Israel were in dread and fear; two, the carrying out of the evil on the appointed day, which is the thirteenth of Adar. And concerning both of these he spoke: concerning the first, 'you shall not fear sudden terror,' and concerning the second, concerning the appointed day, he said, 'nor the destruction of the wicked,' etc., 'when it comes' — for the destruction wrought by their deed would come after eleven months. And behold, this brought him good tidings that he should not fear Haman. And it was still possible that it would be enough for them merely to save their own lives, but they would not see the downfall of their enemies; therefore the second one came and said, 'I read today,' etc. — to say that the preceding verse and this one at which he stopped in school are a hint, namely, it says, 'make an uproar, O peoples, and be broken; and give ear, all you far countries; gird yourselves, and be broken,' etc. — to say, 'make an uproar, O peoples' and be broken and subdued — not only Haman and his sons, but also 'give ear, all you far countries,' that in every province they should gird themselves against Israel, and be broken and subdued. Now, at the time the letters arrive, gird yourselves and be broken — also when the appointed day arrives. And this is what it means by saying 'gird yourselves' twice, etc. — one, concerning the time the king's word and his decree arrived, which is the suddenness that they feared; and the second, concerning the thirteenth of Adar. And should you say, 'What can be done about a writ written in the king's name and sealed with the king's ring, which cannot be revoked, and moreover the law was made known openly to all the peoples?' — to this he concluded and said, concerning the letters, that they are 'a plan,' as we wrote above, that the letters were given as a plan to the officers to reveal on the appointed day — do not be concerned, for 'devise a plan, and it will be foiled'; and concerning the proclamation, he said, 'speak a word, and it will not stand,' etc. And should you say, 'If, then, we are so meritorious that, besides saving us, You will make those who rise up against us fall before us — why has all this befallen us?' — therefore the third came and said, 'Even to old age I am the same,' etc. — to say that what will cause Haman to fall, apart from the salvation, is not on account of your abundance of merit, but rather because of what was said to Ahasuerus, as our Sages of blessed memory said, that the God of Israel, who cast down Pharaoh, and Sichon, and Og, and thirty-one kings, is already old — for behold, the Babylonians danced in His Temple and He was silent. Therefore He, may He be blessed, came to say, 'Even to old age,' etc. — meaning, now, that He will cast him down, know that 'even to old age I am the same' — for at the time of the destruction, when it was said that I had grown old, 'I am the same' as I was at first, for 'I am Hashem, I have not changed' (Malachi 3:6). And also now, 'even to gray hairs,' in this exile of Media, 'I will carry you' until you repent. And according to this approach, he hinted that His very bearing with them is itself His mighty acts; and the reason the Babylonians danced in His Temple and He was silent, is that 'I made it' Myself, and not Nebuchadnezzar — for he was merely 'the rod of My wrath' (cf. Isaiah 10:5). And therefore, 'and I will bear'; and also now, 'I will carry' your trouble, 'and rescue' in the end, which is through repentance. What emerges from this is that Mordecai, even while doing all this trembling — putting on sackcloth and ashes and going out into the midst of the city with a great and bitter cry — his heart was steadfast, trusting in Hashem that relief and deliverance would ultimately stand for the Jews. And his heart was also secure through Elijah, whom he sent from there, [to inform him] that mercy would be sought — he, [namely] Moses, from there, and Mordecai from here — as we have written. And accordingly, it is fitting to give a good reason and understanding as to why he bore down so hard upon Esther, so that it reached to the gates of death. Now, above, on the verse 'Ish Yehudi' (there was a Jewish man), we wrote to give a reason for there being two redeemers — one a man and one a woman — and that she should be married to Ahasuerus and also endanger herself, while correspondingly she attained royalty, at a time when all Israel were in bitter and hasty exile. For among Israel there were two kinds of transgression: one, that they bowed down to the image; the second, that they enjoyed Ahasuerus's feast. For even though according to one view they were liable for the one, and according to another view for the second, it is not impossible that both were present in fact. Therefore, concerning the matter of the image, it was Esther who atoned, as our Sages of blessed memory said: 'Whence is Esther hinted at from the Torah? "And I will surely hide [My face]" [ve-anokhi haster astir]' (Deuteronomy 31:18) — for Israel had turned to other gods. And concerning the matter of the feast, it was Mordecai, who was in Shushan, and not only did he not put forbidden meat in his mouth, but on the contrary, he cried out in the marketplaces that Israel should not go to that feast. We also wrote above that even according to the one who says that they were liable for the sin of the image, his view is that it was through the feast that the arousal of judgment came about; and all the more so according to Rabbi Yishmael, that the decree of destruction was on account of the feast. Behold, the first cause was King Saul — for had he killed Agag in the war against Amalek, Haman would never have come into the world, as our Sages of blessed memory said: that on that very night, Agag slept with a woman and impregnated her with impurity, and that offshoot came forth from the seed that he gave to her from that woman — and he is Haman, who caused Israel to sin at that feast, and brought all of Israel to be destroyed, slain, and annihilated, and they felt the anguish of death until their faces turned black from fasting, as our Sages of blessed memory said. And because of this matter, and also since relief and deliverance would ultimately stand for the Jews, it could not be but that the blame for all the suffering that stirred and came upon Israel would hang upon Saul. Therefore Mordecai reasoned cleverly, and said in his heart: behold, it was not for nothing that Esther attained royalty, if not to atone for the king from whom she descended. And it also seemed to him that she had hidden herself so as not to be taken into the palace, like Saul who hid himself among the baggage. And likewise, it was not for nothing that Ahasuerus lay with her, even though she was righteous — if not because Saul had caused Agag to impregnate a woman with impurity, from whom Haman descended; therefore, impurity should be imposed upon Saul's own offspring — that is, upon her. And Mordecai thought in his heart that she too would have to be poured out to the death of her soul, in place of the fact that, on account of Saul, Israel had reached the gates of death. And by this we have found and seen a good reason as to why Mordecai did not let her wait to come to the king until thirty days had passed, that she would be summoned and come — [rather he pressed her to go uncalled] in order that she would taste the taste of death, for it is his one law to put to death whoever comes uncalled — so that she would atone for the one who caused Israel to reach the gates of death. There is a further, second reason, namely that he said: behold, Elijah informed us that Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, stands in prayer, and therefore the salvation of Israel will not be delayed; and if Esther does not come to the king within thirty days, Israel will then be saved, but not through her — and the guilt of Saul will remain upon the shoulders of all his seed, and they will be readied for exiles, since through this, suffering and wrath would come upon all Israel. Therefore he reasoned all the more cleverly to hasten sending her, for the honor of her father's house. And with this let us come to the explanation of the verses. It states, 'And Mordecai told him all that had happened to him' — that is, what had happened to him with Elijah, who told him two things. One: that the letter of destruction had been sealed in heaven above, on account of the feast that came about through Haman. Two: that there was trust and hope through Moses our teacher, peace be upon him. And this is [the meaning of] 'all that had happened to him.' And this was a preface, to say: See what your grandfather brought about — destruction upon Israel; also see that there is one standing there in the breach — that is, even if Hashem's salvation should come swiftly through him, the seed of Saul would still be endangered on account of having caused the damage, for it was great. And if your heart should hold firm not to believe the extent of the trouble, that it is a decree from heaven, therefore he said, 'See the matter of the money,' etc. — to this, look and see, that Haman did not do his deed by way of chance and happenstance; for behold, his money was given in an amount corresponding to the shekels of Israel, as our Sages of blessed memory said. And by this he intends, in saying 'the matter of the money,' to hint at the interpretation and elucidation of the hint. Also, from the gravity of the matter below, you shall know what is above — for behold, 'see the copy of the writ of the decree' that was given in Shushan to destroy them; and this is what we wrote above, that the copy of the writ of the decree that was in every province was phrased to be readied for that day in general terms, but in Shushan it was explicit, to destroy them. Further, he intended to show how the evil was growing progressively stronger — for behold, it began small: the matter of the money that Haman spoke of, he said only 'to destroy them,' which could be interpreted as referring to plunder and spoil; but when they came to write it, 'and the law was given,' it was to destroy them, which is more severe, as our Sages of blessed memory said, that the idolaters of Shushan would say to a Jew, 'Tomorrow I will kill you and take your property.' Further, he commanded Hatach: first, he should show her the copy of the writ of the decree, so that she would be deeply affected, and afterward tell her all that had happened to him with Elijah. For if she were to hear first the statement of Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, that he would help him through prayer, the matter would seem lighter in her eyes, and she would not pour out her soul to death. And this is [the meaning of] 'to show,' etc. — that first was to show Esther the copy of the writ of the decree, and afterward, 'and to tell her what had happened to him.' And after saying that he should tell her what had happened to him, it says, 'and to charge her' — to say: even though the trouble is great, I do not charge you concerning the matter of Israel, that they should not be redeemed without you — for behold, they have help from the city, that is Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, as is included in the account of what happened to him. But what you shall tell her is to charge her concerning what pertains to her, which is to atone for the house of Saul, as discussed. Therefore he charged her to come to the king to make request before him on behalf of her people — for by her praying for her people, she herself would be answered first, to atone for what pertains to herself, similar to the matter of 'and Hashem restored all that Job had, twofold' (Job 42:10), when he prayed on behalf of his friend. Now, the [Aramaic] translator noticed the redundancy in its saying 'and she charged him for Mordecai,' and said that she charged him to say to Mordecai that he should not stir up strife with Haman. And concerning what is stated afterward, 'and they told Mordecai,' which indicates that others told him and not Hatach — he wrote that Haman had killed Hatach, and Michael and Gabriel happened to appear and told Mordecai; and this is like the phrase, 'and a winged creature shall tell the matter' (Ecclesiastes 10:20), which refers to Gabriel, as in the phrase, 'and the man Gabriel... caused to fly swiftly' (Daniel 9:21). Thus it says 'and they told' referring to Gabriel and his companion, and they likewise brought the answer back to Esther. And this is also the way of the Midrash. But according to the plain sense, it is possible, if we examine closely, that afterward, when Esther's answer is brought back to the messenger, it is stated 'to bring back to Mordecai,' whereas here it says only 'and she said,' etc. But behold, Esther saw that this answer of hers was not in accordance with Mordecai's wish, and she feared lest his anger flare up; therefore, at first, 'and Esther said to Hatach' — she had not resolved in her heart to send her words back to him directly, but said them to Hatach alone, to see whether these words of hers would seem good in his eyes, and whether he would find her reasons persuasive enough to bring back — and this is [the meaning of] 'and Esther said to Hatach.' And after she said this to him, even though there was no doubt that it would not be right in his eyes — and how much more so if he was Daniel — therefore, 'and she charged him for Mordecai' — meaning, she charged him to go to Mordecai, for whatever seemed right in his eyes he should do, whether she would put herself in danger or refrain, and he should not merely tell him her words — for she charged him to make his own judgment the determining factor, leaving the matter entrusted to him; for she was acting upon Mordecai's word, as she had an understanding with him — that what she said to Hatach was 'all the king's servants,' etc. And just as she charged him, so Hatach did: he did not tell her words to Mordecai, but rather those present there, who heard the queen's word, went and told Mordecai the words of Esther.

The Questions: What is meant by "all that had happened to him" — is this not an event that happened to the whole community? And what is the point of "the detail of the money" (parashat ha-kesef) — it should have said simply "the money"? "All that had happened to him" — first he told him the cause, that he himself had been the one who brought this about, through not bowing down to Haman. And he also told him "the detail of the money" — meaning that regarding this money that he [Haman] said would be weighed out, there were two interpretations in it. For before Ahasuerus he said that those carrying out the deed would give the ten thousand talents of silver [to the treasury], and Ahasuerus imagined that this was because, out of the joy they would have over this matter, they would voluntarily donate wealth to the king's treasury. But Haman really intended that from the plunder and spoil that would come of it, the tax due to the king would be ten thousand [talents] — the sum of the tax — in such a way that he deceived Ahasuerus.

"And Mordecai told him all that had happened (keraho) to him" (verse 7) — it is not written "that was done (na'aseh) to him," to indicate that things happened to him that were matters of chance (mikreh). For it was because he did not bow down to Haman (above, 3:2) that Haman did all these things. And this is called "that happened to him," for Mordecai did not intend to disgrace Haman by not bowing to him; rather, he intended only not to transgress the command of Hashem, and a thing like this happened to him — and a thing one does not intend is mere happenstance (mikreh). And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 8:5) on "And Mordecai told him all that had happened (keraho) to him": [Mordecai] said to Hathach, go tell her, the grandson of Karho ["the one who befell," an epithet for Amalek] has come upon us, as it is written of him (Deuteronomy 25:18), "who befell (karcha) you on the way." And in this midrash too the explanation is thus: everything that Amalek and his seed did shows — since they did not aim at their own benefit — that this [enmity] is not a matter of chance, but a matter that is essential [to their nature]. Rather, they are enemies of Israel, and they do not act for their own benefit, for such a thing is not to be reckoned as [driven by] self-interest. Therefore, when Israel went out of Egypt, Amalek came upon them on the way, as it is written (cf. Deuteronomy 25:17-18), "who befell you on the way, when you went out of Egypt." For any nation that attacks another nation, since they intend their own benefit — to conquer their land and take it from their hand — this is not called "befalling." But these [Israel] were [merely] on the road, and had no settlement in any land at all, and had no land of their own, and yet [Amalek] came upon them in battle (Exodus 17:8). And what wealth did they have, seeing that they had been slaves serving others? And Amalek did not know that the Egyptians had lent them wealth (Exodus 12:36); it was not for this that he came, for Amalek did not know of this matter when he came from his land — rather, he came only to be an enemy to Israel. Therefore it says, "who befell you on the way." And its explanation further (Esther Rabbah 8:5): "the grandson of Karho has come upon us" — for since Hashem commanded to blot out the memory of Amalek (Deuteronomy 25:19), from this you know that it is as though they have no essential existence at all, but are regarded as a matter of chance, and not a matter that is essential. And since they are not regarded as an essential thing but rather as a thing of chance, a nation such as this is more opposed, specifically, to Israel, who are essential and primary. For the other nations, which do have some [degree of] existence, are not so opposed to them, since — being joined together with them [in having existence] — they too are reckoned as part of existence. But Amalek and his seed, who are regarded as mere happenstance, inasmuch as they are not [truly] part of existence — for Hashem decreed concerning them (Deuteronomy 25:19), "You shall blot out the memory of Amalek" — are therefore more opposed to Israel, who are the essence of existence. And this is what Mordecai alluded to: "all that had happened (keraho) to him." And it says, "and the sum (parashat) of the money." And the explanation of this is: Mordecai came to tell Esther how great the trouble was. For had Ahasuerus done this entirely on his own, we have already said that a king's decree is not [truly] severe, because it is possible to nullify such a thing, as was explained above. But here, Israel had already gone out of Ahasuerus's hand by means of the money that [Haman] gave to Ahasuerus, and they were no longer in the king's hand but in Haman's hand — and for this reason the trouble was very great. Nevertheless, it says only "to weigh out concerning the Jews," and does not say "that he weighed out," for had he [already] weighed it out, they would already have been sold to him, and what more would there be to do? "That he said to weigh out for the king's treasuries concerning the Yehudiyim [Jews]" — here it writes "ba-Yehudiyim" with two yods, because it alludes here to the fact that Haman did this because the Jews do not wish to worship idols. The first yod in it is the yod of lineage (yud ha-yichus), for they are called "Yehudi" [Jew] because they do not acknowledge idolatry, as above (2:5): that anyone who does not acknowledge idolatry is called a "Yehudi" (Megillah 13a). And the second yod comes to say that this hatred that [Haman] had — to the point that he wished to destroy Israel — was because they did not wish to bow down to idolatry. For the wicked Haman made himself into an idol, and "Mordecai would not bend or bow" (above, 3:2). Behold, the second yod is also a yod of lineage: for they are Jews and do not wish to worship idolatry, and even though Haman wishes, by his power, that they transgress this, they give up their lives for the sanctification of the [divine] Name. And this is [what is meant by] "a Jew within a Jew." Therefore there are two yods, both of them the yod of lineage: the first, that they do not acknowledge idolatry; and the second yod, that even if they [Haman] wish to kill them so that they will worship idolatry, they give up their lives over this, and hand themselves over to death for the sanctification of His Name. And for this reason it was fitting for Esther to act for the honor of His Name to save them, and Hashem too would be a help, since it was for the sake of the sanctification of His Name. And this explanation appears correct and clear, and so too, wherever it is written this way [with a double yod], one should explain likewise. And see further.

"That was given" (asher nitan) — the nif'al conjugation, the [root] nun being absorbed into the tav. "In Shushan, to destroy them" — the sense is: the text of the decree that was given was to destroy all who were in Shushan, for it was the city of the Jews.

The Questions: If this was "the copy of the writing" that was open to all the peoples, surely destroying them was not mentioned there; and if it was from the documents that reached the hands of the provincial officials, how did this document reach Mordecai? Also, after it says "to show Esther," why does it say "to declare it to her" — surely once she sees it, there is no need to tell her anything further? "And the copy of" — "the decree" refers to the sealed documents in which it was written to destroy them, and these documents of the decree were not in Mordecai's possession, for they lay sealed in the hand of the governor of Shushan; only the copy was in his possession, the copy that had been issued publicly, [instructing] that they should be prepared. And the word "to destroy them" refers back to "the decree" — meaning: the copy of the writing of the decree that was issued in Shushan to destroy them (that is, the sealed documents) — this is what he gave him, the copy of the writing, to show Esther that something had already, of necessity, taken place, since it was written in the copy that they should be prepared for war by a set day. And "to declare it to her" means that by means of this sign he would be able to tell her by word of mouth, for the intent of the copy was that they would be prepared to destroy the Jews — and through this, to charge her to come to the king to save the remnant of Israel.

The Questions: "And she said" and "and she charged him" — an unnecessary repetition. "And she said" — Esther was afraid to send Hathach a second time to Mordecai, lest Haman's men recognize him going back and forth on a mission between Mordecai and Esther. Therefore she told Hathach, and charged him, to see to it that the matter would reach Mordecai through another messenger.

"she charged him to Mordecai" (verse 10) — Here it is written "el Mordecai" (to Mordecai), whereas above (verse 5) it is written "al Mordecai" (concerning Mordecai). This is because above, she did not know why he was wearing sackcloth and crying out with a loud and bitter cry (above, verse 1); she thought that Mordecai was lacking something, and therefore it says "va-tetzavehu al Mordecai" (she charged him concerning Mordecai), meaning that she wanted to know what he was lacking. But here she did not come to say this; rather, she came only to reveal this matter to Mordecai, and therefore it is fitting to say only "el Mordecai" (to Mordecai). Nevertheless, the wording "va-tetzavehu el Mordecai" is difficult — what did she command him? For above it works well, meaning that she charged Hathach concerning ("al") Mordecai, for Esther thought that perhaps Mordecai was lacking something, and over this he tore his garments and cried out, and Hathach could remedy the matter for Mordecai; therefore "va-tetzavehu al Mordecai" works well. But here it is difficult what "va-tetzavehu el Mordecai" means. The Targum, too, found this difficult, and therefore rendered it to mean that she commanded Mordecai not to provoke Haman. For we explained above, regarding (Esther 3:2) "he would not kneel and would not prostrate himself," that even though it was possible to go about in a way that Mordecai would not encounter Haman the wicked, nevertheless he would not do so; rather, he went opposite him precisely so as not to kneel and not prostrate himself. And about this Esther said that Mordecai should no longer do this. And even though in the first chapter of Berakhot (7b) it is implied that one may provoke a wicked person, here it is different: for if Mordecai provokes Haman, it is as if everyone were provoking him, as it is written (Esther 3:6) "he disdained to lay a hand on Mordecai alone," and therefore this is as if everyone were provoking him — and not all are righteous. And where one is not a completely righteous person, it is forbidden to provoke a wicked person; about this she commanded that he not provoke Haman.

"And the people of the king's provinces" — even the common people know this. "One" (achat) — it is the king's law for everyone, to be put to death. The word "levad" ("alone") always occurs together with a mem, either following it or preceding it, except in one instance, and that is "levad becha nazkir shemecha" ("through You alone do we mention Your name," Isaiah 26:13). "Shall hold out" (yoshit) — the language of Targum [an Aramaic usage], like "yishlach" ("he shall send"), and it has no parallel [form] elsewhere in Scripture. "Scepter" (sharvit) — a word of four [root] letters, meaning "with a rod" (be-shevet); and some say that the resh is an added letter, like the resh in "sharsheret" ("chain"), but this is not correct, for the resh is not one of the "serving letters" [affix letters]; rather, it is doubled, like the doubling [of the peh] in "ni'upeha" ("her adulteries," Hosea 2:4), and also like the resh in "sagrir" ("driving rain," Proverbs 27:15).

"All the king's servants," etc. — She hinted to him [Mordechai] three things that prevent her from going. The first: that by the way of nature she has no refuge, and all the more so no way to find favor and succeed — for behold, if she is caught, like a thief, for having come though not called, since its law is one — to put to death — there is no defense except to say that she did not know the king's law. But they will not believe me, for the matter is well known: "all the king's servants and the people of the king's provinces," who are not even in Shushan, know that "any man or woman" — that is, even the wife of a king herself — and this is the expansive inclusiveness of the word "any": all have one and the same law, to be put to death, with no distinction between a queen and anyone else. If so, how can I excuse myself by saying, "I did not know"? The second: that even if I do find favor and he holds out to me the golden scepter, the favor will only be sufficient to live — this is what "that he may live" means — but that the finding of favor be doubled, so that after I have forfeited my head to the king, my soul escapes those who transgress the law and from Haman's decree, and moreover that I petition on behalf of my people and this be granted to me — this a person does not reckon on. The third: that I have not been called these thirty days, and since I am not [otherwise] being kept back from coming to the king, why should I endanger myself while there is still time, since the decree was not to take effect until the month of Adar? Nevertheless, despite all this, she did not resolve to disregard Mordechai's word; rather, on the contrary, she added and said, "except him to whom the king shall hold out," etc., meaning: I do not despair of mercy so as to refrain from going. For behold, "he to whom the king shall hold out the golden scepter, that he may live" — that is, it is also possible that a miracle will be done for me, and all the more so in the merit of Israel, and the king will hold out to me the golden scepter — that is, "If you decree a thing, it shall be established for you" (Job 22:28) — to rely on the miracle.

The Questions: Why does it specify particularly "the king's servants" and "the people of the king," and what is [the meaning of] "there is one law for him" — it should simply have said "he shall be put to death"? The question of her being alive is astonishing: how did she not risk her life to die, upon hearing that all of Israel was to be destroyed? And what she said, "but I have not been called," is bland, without salt, and superfluous words. "All the king's servants" — She answered him with two arguments. The first argument: that if she enters now she would be in doubtful danger, and moreover would not reach her desired goal of pleading for her people. (a) Because all the king's servants know [the law], so there will be no excuse that she did not know the king's law, that whoever enters without permission is liable to death. (b) Because all the people of the king's provinces know it, and therefore even if he wished to forgive her sin he could not, since it was a public sin, as was the case with Vashti. And lest you say that the decree does not include all who enter, therefore it says "whoever" — every man or woman, without distinction, whoever it may be. And likewise you should not say that the decree applies only to one who enters without [legitimate] need, but one who enters for the sake of a great matter such as this — to save a people taken to be killed — would not be put to death. Therefore it says "who comes to the king," who is merely "not called": whoever is not called, there is no distinction in his verdict; rather, "there is one law for him" — to put him to death. Meaning: whether the one who enters is worthy of favor or not, and whether his business is urgent or not, there is no distinction in their law, and all are liable to death. It follows that one who enters without permission is immediately liable to death, except that the king extends to him the golden scepter, which atones for his sin, and he lives. But even so, he has already become liable to death; it is only that the king does him a kindness. Now, if I enter without permission, even if the king forgives me, it is enough that I save my own life, but I will not be able to plead further on behalf of others — this is the first argument. The second argument: to save those taken to be killed, one must try every means, even the most remote — perhaps Hashem will send help through His sanctuary — but all this [applies] only when there is no more direct way to salvation; but when there is a more certain way, one must grasp the more correct way. And so she said: since I have not been called to come to the king these thirty days, surely within a few more days he will call me, and then it will be easier to plead on behalf of the people; and it is better to wait until I am called.

"All the king's servants, etc." (verse 11) — Explanation: why did she need to say "all the king's servants"? Did not Mordechai also know this? Or even if he did not know it, would Mordechai not believe her, that she needed to bring proof by saying "all the king's servants"? Rather, the explanation is this: Mordechai had said that she should go before the king, and Ahasuerus would have nothing against her for having entered without permission, for she could say, "I did not know the king's decree, and I did not transgress the king's statute and law." To this she answered that this is no valid answer, for "all the king's servants..." [know the law]; and if so, the king could not say that it was an inadvertent error on Esther's part, that she did not know the law. And as for her saying "the king's servants, and all the provinces of the king" — [she said it this way because] had she said "the king's servants" alone, one might say that it applies specifically to those who are close [to the king], such as the king's servants — this being so, because the king's servants are in the king's court, and if they were to come into the king's court [uninvited], they would become accustomed to him as though they were entirely his companions, and this is not fitting for the king. But regarding his wife, one cannot say that she would become entirely accustomed to him, for what business does she have with him when he has no need of her. Therefore she said "and all the provinces of the king" — [meaning] those who are not commonly found and accustomed near the king — and nevertheless the law applies to them as well. And had she said "all the provinces of the king" alone, one might say that this refers specifically to the provinces of the king who have no connection to the king, but his wife has a connection to the king, and this law would not apply to her. Therefore Esther said that the law applies both to those who are close, such as his servants, and also to those who are far, that they may not come to the king's court. And the Targum (here) explains that the wicked Haman instituted this law: "any man or woman who comes to the inner court, his law is to be put to death." This is because it seemed difficult to him [the Targum] that it would not be fitting for the king to do such a thing, for sometimes a person has a great trouble and needs salvation from the king — so why would he decree this? To this he answered that the wicked Haman, who was disposed toward evil, made this law, but in truth it is an evil thing. And this very fact was what saved Esther now, for it is not fitting that Haman's own intention should end up working to his benefit. And she said, "But I have not been called to come in to the king these thirty days." Now this is difficult: what does it matter that she was not called to the king these thirty days — even had she been called within the thirty days, what would that matter? One may answer: one who sees his fellow after thirty days [of absence] recites the blessing "Shehecheyanu" [Who has kept us alive] (Berachot 58b). It follows that anyone who was not seen within thirty days is considered as though he had departed from him, since one is obligated to recite "Shehecheyanu" upon seeing him again. Therefore she said this so that one should not say: since I am beloved by him, he will surely extend to me the golden scepter, for he desires me when I come before him. To this she said: since I have not been called these thirty days, to the point that I am considered as having departed from him — if so, one cannot rely on this to say "I am beloved by him," after not having been called for thirty days. And if he desired me so much, why then did he not call me these thirty days, until I am considered by him like a new face? But she did not know that, on the contrary, Hashem had arranged this — that she was not called — because a new face is more beloved than one who is cherished through being constantly with him; that is why she was not called. One might further say that she was hinting at something great, for [the phrase] "I have not been called to the king these thirty days" — that is, from the 13th of Adar until the 13th of Nissan (the text originally read "the 15th," here corrected to "the 13th") is thirty days, since Adar is a deficient month [i.e., twenty-nine days]. She was hinting to him [Mordechai] that she saw that the lot which Haman cast has real substance to it, for that day on which Haman cast the lot upon it is a day disposed toward misfortune — since from that day, which is the 13th of Adar (above, 3:13), she was not called to come to the king, and the day itself is the cause. For this reason she said it would be better to seek help from someone else regarding this matter, since she saw that her mazal (fortune) had turned bad against Ahasuerus in this matter, as she saw a sign for this: that from the 13th of Adar — the day on which Haman cast his lot — she was not called to come to the king. But we have already said that it is the opposite: she was not called for thirty days precisely because anyone who has not seen someone for thirty days becomes more beloved to him; therefore he would surely extend to her the golden scepter, since he had not seen her within thirty days. Some raise a difficulty: was Esther unwilling to give her life for her people, that she was afraid she would incur the death penalty from the king? This is not a real question, for she meant that they should wait some further time, until the hour would come when she would be called to come to the king, and then she would speak her request. For on the contrary, [going] now would only increase the king's wrath, and it would be nothing but a matter of uncertain outcome — one should not do this, since it is possible to wait. And indeed, on the contrary, one should ask: what did Mordechai see, that justified her entering into uncertainty by coming to the king against the law, and why did he not wait some days until she would be called to the king? It would appear that the lot which Haman cast needed to be entirely overturned upon him, for this is [what constitutes] the salvation of Israel, and Mordechai knew this. And because this decree went out in Nissan (above, 3:7), therefore the decree itself needed to go out [again] and be overturned upon the seed of Amalek, that they be killed. Even though the lot was not overturned on that very same day on which it was cast, this is not a difficulty, for they were occupied with this matter for two or three days, and the whole time they were occupied with it, it is considered as though it were all at one time and in one hour. But ultimately, the falling of the lot upon Haman was all at one time, and so it is fitting. And just as the day on which Haman fixed [the lot] was the 13th of Adar (above, 3:13), so too the day of the deed to kill the sons of Haman and the seed of Amalek was entirely on the 13th of Adar. And so the time of the falling of the lot, that it be overturned upon him, needed to be entirely one time. Therefore Mordechai said (below, verse 14), "If you keep silent at this time, etc.," for "this time" needed to be the moment of relief and salvation for the Jews, to turn the matter over onto Haman — as we shall further explain, that this was the complete success, in that it was overturned upon him entirely. And therefore the hanging that Haman had planned for Mordechai (below, 5:14) was likewise overturned upon him at that very time, completely, and Haman was hanged, as is written in the text — from which you can see that this whole matter was so. And this is why he [Mordechai] also did not want to remove the sackcloth from himself, so as not to let pass the time when Haman cast the lot, which is disposed to be overturned upon him. It is still difficult: why did Esther not send word to the king that she wished to come before him — why should she endanger herself? This is not a real question, for she was afraid that he would not grant her permission, and afterward she would not be able to come before the king at all, since this would be considered rebellion once he had not granted her permission. Furthermore, Esther argued mi-mah nafshach [whichever way you look at it]: if Hashem wishes to save Israel from Haman, He will surely also save her, who went to save Israel. And if Hashem does not wish to save Israel, then she too is not seeking salvation [for herself], for she knew that she would not be able to escape even within the king's house (verses 13-14).

The Questions: "And they told" — who are the tellers? The words of our Sages [on this] are well known. "And they told" — the messengers whom Hathach had sent.

"And they told Mordecai Esther's words" (verse 12) — it is not written "and he told" [singular], because it was not Hatach [who went]. It appears that this was the third time that Hatach had gone on a mission from Esther, and he did not want to go a third time, so that people would not see that he was always going and coming from Esther to Mordecai, [and] Haman would think that Hatach had dealings with Esther concerning Haman, to do something against him before the king. And who knows what Haman would do in order to bring him [Hatach] down. Therefore, on this third time — since through three [round trips] there would now be a multiplication of the traffic in the mission between Mordecai and Esther — for this reason Hatach did not go, and others told him, but not Hatach. And it is written "and they told Mordecai," because Esther did not rely on telling it through one person, for perhaps he would not go to tell Mordecai, and then it would not become known. But when there is more than one, if this one does not go to tell, another will go to tell him. Therefore it is written "and they told" in the plural — since there was no specific messenger here, Scripture wrote "and they told" in the plural, meaning "people told," and this in fact was one of the tellers; for when there is no specific [messenger] here, it says "and they told." And the Gemara says (Megillah 15a): "'And they told him Esther's words' — but Hatach himself did not go to him [Mordecai]. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: from here [we learn] that one does not report on a mishap" — thus far [the Gemara]. Now on the face of it this is difficult, for since we find that Esther did not want to reveal the matter to anyone but Hatach, how was Hatach permitted to reveal it to another? For one who tells a matter to his fellow is forbidden to reveal it to another (Yoma 4b). If so, how was he permitted to do this? One must say that Mordecai gave him permission to tell another, because he [Mordecai] did not want to respond concerning a matter of disgrace. And it is also possible to explain, according to the view of the Gemara, that it was certainly Hatach [who told it], and the meaning of "and they told" is "one of the tellers." And we find this matter in a number of places, that Scripture speaks in the plural meaning [really] one of them — only that the Gemara found it difficult why here Scripture does not attribute it to him [by name], as it did before this. And it answers that it is because "one does not report on a mishap," and therefore Scripture did not attribute it to him, since it is a disgrace to him — but the truth is that Hatach told this, and its meaning is "one of the tellers." And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1056): "And they told Mordecai Esther's word" — but he [Hatach] himself did not go. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: from here [we learn] that one does not report on a mishap. And some say: when Haman saw Hatach going in and out, he killed him, which is why he is not mentioned again. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: since he [Haman] killed him, she [Esther] shall be served through the Holy Spirit [instead]. And this second explanation is close to what we said, that Hatach did this because he did not want to go, out of fear of Haman. Except that this was difficult for the master of the Midrash, for behold we say (Megillah 15a) that "Hatach" is Daniel, and if so, certainly Daniel would not have been afraid of Haman, seeing what sort of man he was — and therefore it says that he [Haman] killed him outright. And in any case this is not difficult for the explanation that we gave, for certainly Esther would also reveal things to her maidens, just as she would reveal to Hatach — for if not so, she would not have sent garments to clothe Mordecai through her maidens. [It is only] that they were not as wise, to ask and to answer, as Hatach, and therefore she sent Hatach. And therefore on the third occasion — since she was not sending him [Hatach], but only to tell him [Mordecai] (above, verse 11) "All the king's servants, etc." — it was possible to send this through her maidens.

You had better not fantasize. [I.e.,] “Do not think,” as in, “And it will be, that which I had thought.” Do not imagine to yourself, do not think to escape in the king’s palace on the day of the massacre, and therefore you do not want to endanger yourself now by taking the risk of coming to the king without permission. — Notes: (4) Bamidbar 33:56. (5) Esther apparently wanted to delay going to the king. Mordechai therefore emphasized to Esther that she must not hesitate, but rather she must seize the moment and go immediately before the king and beg him to spare her people.

"Do not imagine" (al tedami) — [meaning] "do not think"; from the same root as "ka'asher dimmiti" ("as I have planned," Isaiah 14:24), both being from the root of dimyon (imagining) in the thought of the soul. The dagesh in the tzadi of "hatzalah" is due to the missing root letter nun; and the sense is that relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another direction, and not through you; and if you imagine that you will escape, you will perish, you and all your father's house with you.

"To return word to Esther" — this is superfluous. Likewise, "you shall surely hold your peace" [hacharesh tacharishi] is doubled. Likewise it says "relief and deliverance" [revach v'hatzalah] — why is the yud of "revach" missing, so that it is written "ruach" [wind/spirit]? Furthermore it says "from another place" — which is that other place? Furthermore, if there is relief from another place, why should she pour out her soul unto death, coming in a manner that is not according to the law, if there is relief from another place? Furthermore, is it conceivable that she and her father's house should die and Israel be saved, while she remains in the king's palace? And furthermore it says "if for such a time" [le'et kazot] and not "for this time" [le'et hazot]. But behold, we have written that Esther was hesitant about sending her reply back to him. What she said — "all the king's servants," etc. — she said only to Hatach; and afterward, when she commanded him concerning Mordecai, he was to go to him, but not to tell him outright — only to see what was in Mordecai's mouth and heart to do, whether she should take the risk or should refrain. Yet Mordecai did not lack for those who would report her words to him, and they told Mordecai what Esther had said. Therefore Mordecai came back with words as hard as sinews, unlike Esther, who did not resolve to send her reply to Mordecai definitively, but only took care that Mordecai should not take offense at her saying "all the king's servants," etc. — which indicates that she was refusing his instruction — and she left the matter to Hatach, whether to say it, or to hold back, or to improve it and devise some argument to sweeten the matter in a cunning manner. But Mordecai, even though he answered harshly, was not concerned whether she would take offense, and he did not leave the matter to "a faithful messenger who brings healing" (Proverbs 13:17), to see whether he would soften it and alter it out of deference to her honor. Rather, he insisted on returning to Esther the words in their exact likeness and image. And he said: behold, that which I concealed in a hint, I now reveal in plain language. For is it not that in saying "and he told him all that had befallen him," we said that he hinted to her that what had befallen him with Elijah was that the decree was one of total destruction, and that it had come about through Haman, who had invited them to a feast; and that Moses our teacher, peace upon him, was pleading for mercy from there — that therefore he should go and instruct her, that is, regarding the matter that concerned her, that she should come before the king to plead for her people, lest the salvation of Israel come through someone else, and the guilt of the house of Saul remain upon him and his descendants, for it was through him that Israel came to the gates of death — therefore she too should go and risk herself, to redeem them, to atone on his behalf. Now, although it is possible that she, in her wisdom, understood the matter even though it had been conveyed only by a hint, Mordecai now said that the proper way to answer Esther was in plain terms, so that it would truly make an impression upon her, in essence. And this is [the meaning of] "do not imagine in your soul" — that is, do not imagine that your soul is righteous enough to escape, etc. — for know, rather, only this: if you utterly hold your peace at this time and wait until the king calls you, then, in the meantime, "relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place" — that is, from Moshe Rabbeinu, from the place of his glory in the Garden of Eden. This is what we wrote in the name of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, that Elijah informed Mordecai of Moses's message, telling him that Moses would pray from there and Mordecai from here, and their prayer would be heard. And by this he means: if you hold your peace, it is only you [who does so], but not Moses. And she knew this, as we have written, for this is [the meaning of] "Mordecai told him all that had happened to him" — that is, all that had happened to him with Elijah — which he then had the messenger tell her. And this is [the meaning of] "if you hold your peace" — you alone hold your peace, but there is another besides you who will not hold his peace — namely, Moses. In such a way that "relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place" — that is, from Moses, from the Garden of Eden — who will not wait until the king calls you; and so the salvation will come about, but not through you. This is why the word "revach" is missing its yud — to hint that the relief that will come from that place comes from one who has no body, but is spirit ["ruach"]. And since you would not be risking yourself for the sake of the salvation, the sin of Saul, which caused all this evil, would remain unatoned; therefore "you and your father's house," who are of the house of Saul that caused the evil, "will perish." Therefore, risk yourself to atone for your father's house. Look and see how true my words are: for were it not so, how — and to what end — while all Israel are enslaved in exile, did you rise to royalty? But who knows whether it was "for such a time" as this, to rectify the guilt of Saul, that you attained royalty, so that you, being royal, might set the matter right. Now, it would have been proper to say "for this time" [le'et hazot] rather than "for such a time" [le'et kazot]; but it may be understood to mean "for a time like this one" — for the time decreed for destruction, the thirteenth of Adar, is like this time, the thirteenth of Nisan, on which you attained royalty. It is also possible, regarding the phrase "to return word to Esther" — even though it is known that the matter was indeed to be relayed back to her — that since he spoke harsh things, "do not imagine," etc., "and you and your father's house will perish," therefore, so that the messenger would not appear culpable in saying these things to the queen, or refuse to serve as a messenger in this harsh matter, or alter the wording — Mordecai therefore acted cleverly: he phrased the words as though his own mouth were speaking directly, in the second person, "you," so that she would not hold it against the messenger, but rather understand that it was Mordecai himself speaking, at whom she would not take offense. This follows the manner of human speech regarding such a message: if one were to speak to Esther face to face, he would say to her, "do not imagine," etc., "for if you hold your peace," etc., "and you and your father's house will perish," etc., "you have attained royalty." But in speaking to the messenger about her, he would speak of her in the third person, as one speaks of someone who is not present, and would say, "tell her that she should not imagine in her soul that she will escape," etc., "for if she holds her peace," etc., "she and her father's house will perish," and "who knows whether it was for such a time that she attained royalty." And the messenger, in delivering his message to her, would speak of her, saying, "Thus said Mordecai: do not imagine in your soul," etc. But he did not speak this way; rather, he had his own mouth speak to her face to face, saying to her, "do not imagine," etc., "for if you hold your peace," etc. — so as to place in the messenger's ears the very words themselves that he was to speak to her. This is because he said the words so that they would be returned exactly as they were — unlike the case where, if he had told the messenger to say that "she should not imagine in her soul," etc., and the messenger then reported that he had said "do not imagine in your soul" — that would not be returning the words themselves. Rather, Mordecai wanted to show her: see how careful I was not to change anything — for the wording I had to use, in the second person, "do not imagine in your soul," etc., is what he put in the messenger's mouth; he did not say "tell Esther that she should not imagine in her soul," etc. In this way the messenger would not be blamed for speaking those harsh words in the second person. And this is [the meaning of] "to return word to Esther" — that he said specific words to be returned to Esther without change or substitution, exactly as they came from his mouth, rather than telling the messenger to tell her that she should not imagine that she would escape, etc., such that the messenger would then alter it, speaking in the third person: "he told me that she should not imagine in her soul," etc. It is also possible that he says "to return word to Esther" to indicate that the messenger should not deliver these words in the presence of those who were with her in the house [i.e., her attendants], because they are harsh words, but only to Esther alone — and this is [the meaning of] "to return word to Esther." It is also possible that his saying "to return word to Esther" means that he did not take into account, in this answer of his, the fact that she was queen, but rather addressed his answer "to Esther" as one devoid of royalty — therefore, "the knowledge of his lips spoke clearly" (Job 33:3), uttering words as hard as sinews. And as for the doubling in saying "you shall surely hold your peace" [hacharesh tacharishi], aside from what we wrote above, it may mean: if you hold your peace now, refraining from speaking to the king, you will also be silenced in your own destruction, so that you will fade away, and you will not be able to escape. Or it hints to her: if you hold your peace now, refraining from speaking to the king, you will also hold your peace later when you are summoned to the king, for by then the matter will already have been set right, for relief and deliverance will arise, etc., and it will not be through you, and you all will be found guilty.

The Questions: "to yourself" [bi-nafshekh] is superfluous. "Do not think" — Through this message he made known to her several precious points: 1. Whenever we see something that departs from the ordinary and from nature, we must take to heart that Hashem made it so, that it should be a means for Him toward some providential purpose, and a cause for some effect. Accordingly, since Esther's rise from her lowly state to the royal house is far from the ordinary course of things, it must have been by the word of Hashem for some purpose; and since we see that at that time the general calamity befell Israel, it is clear that Hashem prepared her in order to heal, through her, the breaking of His people. 2. For every calamity that comes upon Israel there is a set period, a time, and a hidden day, appointed for salvation, through the preparations and causes He established for the deliverance; and if they are not saved through one cause, Hashem will necessarily establish for them another cause for their salvation, for Hashem will not forsake His people. 3. Anything whose existence is not for its own sake but for the sake of something else — its existence and continuation depend on that thing for whose sake it exists. For example: one who builds a winter garden [greenhouse] in order to grow plants and vegetation that should bear fruit in winter as in summer — the existence of that structure is only for the sake of the winter growth; and if he should decide in his mind to leave these plants to grow there in summer, he would thereby necessarily tear down the building, because in summer there are other causes that assist growth, through the heat of the sun and the air, and there is no need for an artificial oven and heating. On this basis he made known to Esther the following understanding: that since her whole existence in this high position of being in the royal house is not for her own sake but for the sake of saving the Jews, Hashem necessarily also prepared other, more remote causes, so that if Esther should sin and refrain from saving them, Hashem's people would still be saved through the other causes. It follows that she must think that her existence in greatness and honor is only for the sake of the deliverance coming about through her at that particular appointed time, which is now; and if that time should pass and she does not gird herself with strength to save them, meanwhile the other causes will arrive, for Hashem will not abandon His inheritance in the hand of a single woman who has free choice for good or evil; and there must necessarily be other causes, and then she will no longer be needed, since salvation will already have arrived from elsewhere. And so it says: "Do not think to yourself that you will escape in the king's house" — meaning: do not think that your being in the king's house is a matter dependent on yourself, and that the existence of your greatness is for your own sake, not for the sake of the Jews and their deliverance, to the point that you think that you are the essential thing and the deliverance of the Jews will follow from you incidentally. For the opposite is true: the essential thing is the deliverance of the Jews, and from their deliverance follows your greatness, as stated in the first Introduction. And this is why it says "to yourself."

"Then Mordecai bade them return answer, etc." (verse 13). Some ask: did Mordecai suspect Esther of not being willing to give her life for her people, when she would see such great distress? It appears that when Mordecai saw that Esther had not immediately accepted upon herself to come before the king, and Mordecai had to go back and answer her, he said: surely Esther is relying on this, since there is a long time from the 13th of Nisan until Adar — within this time she will come before the king in accordance with the law, and she need not transgress the king's law, for anyone who is not summoned to the king, the law is to put him to death. And this is why Esther answered that such is the king's law — why should I go before the king not in accordance with the law? And regarding this it says "to return answer to Esther," and it should only have said "to say to Esther" — why does it say "to return answer to Esther"? Because it is a decisive rebuttal. It is not that I am telling her merely that there is cause for concern about this, and that perhaps she will not be able to escape by being in the king's house — for this cannot be known with certainty, that she will not escape by being in the king's house — rather, these words are a decisive rebuttal, and it is certainly so. For since the decree is upon the community of Israel as a whole, then the decree is upon her as well — how will she escape this decree, which is upon her too? And certainly the strength of the community is greater than that of the individual, and if the community is not saved, how could she be saved merely because she is in the king's house? The decree is upon her as well, and the king's house does not save her from this. On the contrary — when she is in the king's house she is alone, and the strength of the individual is not like the strength of the community; and this is a decisive rebuttal. And as for what she says — that there is still time to come before the king — regarding this it says "Do not imagine to yourself, etc." That is to say: because you imagine it so, you therefore find this merit — that there is still time to come to the king — and this is because your thinking is that these things do not apply to you. But if you did not imagine so, and knew that you too are in danger, as is the truth, then you would not find this merit to rely upon. For perhaps you will not be able to come before the king at that hour; therefore one must not rely on this at all, and at every hour you must see whether it is possible for you to bring about a rescue. And as to what it says, "the king's house" — it means to say that this is a kal va-chomer (an a fortiori argument): if Ahasuerus wishes to destroy those who are far from him, because of his hatred toward Israel, then those close to him, who are in his house, all the more so Ahasuerus will not want them. Therefore you will not be able to escape by being in the king's house, for "a man does not dwell with a snake in the same basket" (Yevamot 112b). And this matter is comparable to one who is pursued by another who seeks to kill him, and the pursued flees to the house of the pursuer — does he thereby save himself, by being in the house of the pursuer? So too with you: even when you are in the king's house, you are alone, and the strength of the individual is not like that of the community, as we have said. And according to what we explained — that salvation is more imminent when it is possible for it to be turned over upon him [Haman] at once, and this is why Mordecai did not want there to be [more] time for this matter — this too is correct. And this is what it says: "if you keep silent at this time" — it should only have said "if you keep silent"; why does it say "at this time"? Rather, the matter is bound to "at this time" for this reason: since Haman brought distress upon all of Israel at this time, and decreed upon them to destroy and kill everyone, this time must be turned over upon him. For the decree went out in Nisan (above, 3:7) to destroy and kill all the Jews, and this time must be turned over upon Haman, for such is the nature of the lot [goral] — that it turns over upon him. Therefore it says "if you keep silent at this time." And one can further explain that it says so because "this time" is prepared specifically for Israel to nullify the power of Haman, and not another time of this month — for it is the first month (above, 3:7), and Esau too, who is the ancestral house of Amalek, from whom Haman descended, is also called "the first." And the lot fell on the 13th of the month, for on the 14th they burn the leaven and the chametz from their houses (Pesachim 5a). And this is a hint at the removal of Esau, who is the leaven of the world. Therefore they said: "in the merit of three 'firsts,' they merited three 'firsts,'" as stated in the first chapter of Pesachim (5a). And it says there: in the merit of "But on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses" (Exodus 12:15), they merited to cut off the seed of Esau, who is called "the first," as it is said (Genesis 25:25), "and the first one emerged red." Therefore it says "if you keep silent at this time" — which is specifically designated for the removal of leaven — "relief and deliverance, etc." This will be explained further. And as to what it says, "relief and deliverance" — it should have said "deliverance will stand for us from another place." Rather, it means to say that this distress from Haman, who is the oppressor of Israel, and therefore wishes to destroy us — for he is called "the enemy of the Jews" (above, 3:10) — [comes about] because they [Israel and Esau] are like two things standing together in a narrow place, and the place does not have room [revach] for both of them; so it is with the seed of Esau. Therefore Jacob and Esau struggled together within one womb (Genesis 25:22), because the place was not fit for both of them. And because of this, Haman, who is of the seed of Esau, oppresses them — and this is why Scripture calls him "the enemy of the Jews," from the language of "narrow" [tzar] — that if there is relief [revach] for one, it is narrow [tzar] for the other, as they said (Megillah 6a), that if this one rises, that one falls. And regarding this it says, "relief and deliverance will stand for the Jews from another place" — for the place of Israel is their father Jacob, who is their root and essence, who is a father to them, and therefore Jacob is called "Place" for Israel. And the numerical value (gematria) of the letters of "Jacob," together with the count of the letters, is the same as the numerical value of "Place." And this is because Jacob is the root of the planted tree, which has twelve branches. And because Jacob's blessing is without borders, as it is written (Genesis 28:14), "and you shall spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south" — and for a territory that has no borders, there is no narrowness at all. Therefore it says "relief and deliverance will stand for the Jews from another place," for also "the house of Jacob shall be a fire" against the house of Esau (Obadiah 1:18). And even though they said (Genesis Rabbah 73:7) that Esau falls only by the hand of the sons of Rachel — by the hand of Benjamin and by the hand of Joseph, who are the youngest, as it is written (Jeremiah 49:20), "surely the youngest of the flock shall drag them away" — that is when there are, from among the youngest, men prepared for this; but if there are no men prepared for this, it would be (Obadiah 1:18), "the house of Jacob a fire, and Esau straw." Therefore "relief and deliverance will stand for the Jews from another place," for "Jacob," in the numerical value of its letters together with the count of the letters, equals "Place," and for Jacob there is no oppressor from Esau, since Jacob's blessing is "and you shall spread out to the west and to the east, etc." And therefore what it says is correct: "and you and your father's house will perish" — and this is difficult, for if Esther sinned, what did her father's house sin? But the explanation is this: this tribe is positioned to stand against Haman, as it is said (Jeremiah 49:20), "surely the youngest of the flock shall drag them away," and they are the sons of Rachel, who is the youngest. And since this tribe is positioned [to stand] against Esau — for Esau is their opposite, for the reason we gave above — Mordecai said: since you are not standing against them, you give them a hand to rule; if so, "you and your father's house," which is of the tribe of Benjamin, "will perish" — for you give strength to Haman, who is of the seed of Esau, who stands against this tribe in particular. And whoever stands against one, that one ought to stand against him and uproot him. And if he does not do so, it is turned back upon him — as Scripture said, when Israel does not wipe out the seven nations (Numbers 33:56), "then it shall come to pass, that as I thought to do to them, so will I do to you." And all this is because they themselves are positioned to stand against them and uproot them, and when they do not do so and uproot them, it is turned back upon them. And this is because, since it is positioned to uproot him and does not do so, its closeness to him becomes very great, as if it were him himself, and therefore it is turned back upon it. And therefore this matter has its opening from here (Megillah 11a). And this is because Saul had mercy on Agag and let him live; therefore it was turned back upon him, in that Haman, who came from the seed of Agag, came to destroy Israel. And therefore it says, "and your father's house will perish" — for since you are positioned to uproot Haman and you do not do so, your closeness to Haman is so great, as if you were he himself, and because of this you will perish. And one can further explain what it says, "from another place" — it means to say that the Holy One, blessed be He, is called "Place," because He, may He be blessed, sustains everything. And for this reason, the place that is a place for the one dwelling in it is also called by the name "place," because it sustains the one dwelling in it — as we wrote and elaborated at the end of Gittin (88a), regarding "the Holy One, blessed be He, did a kindness for Israel, in that He exiled them two years before" [the verse's] (Deuteronomy 4:25) "ve-noshantem" ["and you shall have grown old"]. And therefore it says that relief and deliverance will come to the Jews "from another place" — and in this place there will be no power for the oppressor, namely wicked Haman, for He, may He be blessed, grants sustenance to everything, but not to the wicked, and from this place deliverance will come to us. And as to what it says, "from another place" — that is to say, that He, may He be blessed, who is called "Place," is not a place for the seed of Amalek. And therefore, since we in our exile have distanced ourselves, through our sins, from the Place, that is Hashem, may He be blessed — this oppressor, who is the seed of Amalek, distresses us, for thus Esau and Jacob cannot stand together. But "relief and deliverance" means that we shall have relief from him when we have no association with him — and this is "relief and deliverance will stand for the Jews from another place." And one can further say, regarding "relief and deliverance will stand for the Jews from another place," that He, may He be blessed, is called "Place" (Genesis Rabbah 68:9) because He, may He be blessed, sustains everything, and gives place to everything. So too the king can also be called "place," because he sustains the nation over which he reigns. And when you are queen, upon you too rests [the duty] to sustain your nation; and if you do not do this, "relief and deliverance will stand for the Jews from another place" — that is, Hashem, may He be blessed, who is a place for everything because He sustains everything. For now it is fitting for you to be a place for Israel, since you are queen, and to grant them sustenance against the enemy. Understand these words very well, for He, may He be blessed, establishes and sustains everything; therefore He is a place for everything. And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, part 2, 1056): "for if you keep silent" — if you are silent now, in the end the Holy One, blessed be He, will be silent toward you. And do not suppose that the Holy One, blessed be He, abandons them: were you and your father's house present for Israel in Egypt, when He took the souls of their (the Egyptians') firstborn, and drowned their enemies in the sea? Or when Amalek came, "and Joshua weakened [Amalek], etc." (Exodus 17:13)? And so with every single matter. Yet even now, "relief and deliverance will stand for the Jews." And the explanation of this is: if you do not pay heed to the distress of Israel, when you are able to help them, in the end you will be in distress and will cry out to Hashem, may He be blessed, and He will be silent toward you and will leave you in distress as well. And it says "relief and deliverance will stand for the Jews from another place" — since you do not wish to be a help and support for them, deliverance must come "from another place," meaning a place that is foreign to you, since you are not seeking their deliverance, and from another place their deliverance will come. And therefore one can only say that the place from which deliverance comes to them is the opposite of you. And therefore the place of their deliverance will be the opposite of you; and just as Israel will have their deliverance from there, so you and your father's house will have destruction from there, since the place from which their deliverance comes is the opposite of you. And therefore it says "and you and your father's house" — for everything that belongs to you and is related to you is the opposite of the place from which their deliverance comes. And in another midrash (Esther Rabbah 8:6): "if you keep silent" now, and are silent about teaching a defense [sanegoria] for your nation, you will be silent in the future to come, and you will have no opening of the mouth [no excuse] — why? Because you are able to do good in your days and did not do it. And do you think that the Holy One, blessed be He, abandons Israel? In any case, He raises up for them a redeemer, as it is said, "relief and deliverance will stand for the Jews from another place" — until here [end of citation]. And the explanation of this is: man is created for this purpose — that when something of this sort comes into his hand, that he is able to do good for someone, he should not be silent about it, so as not to fail to bring this matter into actuality. For man is created to bring into actuality whatever it is possible for him to bring into actuality, and to be in complete actuality. And if you are silent now, you will also be silent in the future, and you will remain in potential and not in actuality. And this is not fitting for a person — that he not be in complete actuality. Therefore, if you are silent now and remain in potential and not in actuality, so too in the future you will be in potential and not in actuality, and this is not the completeness of man — and this matter is to be understood.

Who knows whether, at this time next year, you will retain your royal position. [I.e.,] “And who knows whether the king will desire you next year, which is the time of the massacre.” — Notes: (6) I.e., who knows whether you will be spared from the decree. At this time next year. For he was presently in Nisan, and the time of the massacre was in Adar of the next year. You will retain your royal position. If you will attain the greatness which you now enjoy.

"And who knows whether it is not for such a time as this" — the sense: who knows, perhaps you attained to royalty for no other reason than this time, that you might save Israel.

The Questions: What is [the meaning of] 'at this time,' and in particular, what was the rush concerning her — is there not still 'a vision for the appointed time,' and in the meantime she could be summoned to the king? And what he said, 'whether for such a time as this,' has no clear explanation. 'For if' — from this he continues: since her presence in the king's house was only so that she would be a cause for the salvation of Israel, and necessarily their whole rescue did not depend on her alone — rather, if she held back, other causes for salvation would necessarily arise and come about. And so he said: 'for if you utterly keep silent at this time,' relief and deliverance will stand for the Jews from another place, as stated in Introduction 2; and consequently, 'you and your father's house will perish,' since your presence in this high position would then be for nothing, as stated in Introduction 3. And he explains the matter: 'and who knows whether you have attained royalty for such a time as this' — meaning, do not think that you will be a help to their salvation after a few days, when you are summoned by the king; for it may be that Hashem appointed you only for this time, so that through you their salvation would come today, and if you wait until tomorrow, your time will have passed, for tomorrow Hashem has appointed other causes — like the parable of the winter-house, which is not needed in the summer season, since other causes have already been prepared for the growth of plants — and you would perish after your existence in greatness had become pointless.

"And who knows whether you have not come to royal estate for such a time as this" — The meaning is: what he said, "Do not imagine to yourself that you will escape in the king's house," that is, that you will have deliverance — he added, not this alone, but also, "who knows whether you have not come to royal estate for such a time as this." For since the decree went out from before the king to destroy us at that time, and the decree was now, perhaps you too will be removed from the kingdom, just as he has now decreed to destroy us, and this will be the cause for your removal from the kingdom. But if Hashem, may He be blessed, grants Israel relief and deliverance, to save us at that time, this thing will not be for you. Therefore, who knows whether it was for that time that you have come to royal estate, so that you will remain in your kingdom.

"to return [an answer] to Mordecai" — the point is that, behold, in all her conduct, as will emerge further with the help of Heaven, she intended that it not be noticed that she was pursuing measures to save Israel. For on the contrary, she presented herself as one who loved Haman, so that they would not rely on her and thereby grow slack in repentance. Therefore she said "to return to Mordecai" — meaning, to him alone, and not to let it be heard by those who were with him.

Even though it is unlawful. For it is contrary to the law for one who has not been summoned to enter. And the Midrash Aggadah [explains], “even though it is unlawful,” [to signify], “for until now I was coerced [to live with Achashveirosh], but now [I will do so] willingly.” — Notes: (7) Maseches Megillah 15a. And as I am bereft, so must I be further bereft. [I.e.,] “And just as I have begun to go to destruction [by appearing before Achashveirosh without being summoned], I will go and die.” And the Midrash Aggadah [explains], “as I am lost [i.e., orphaned] from my father’s house, so will I be lost to you, for from now on, that I am submitting willingly to a heathen, I will be forbidden to you.” — Notes: (8) Because the Torah forbids a wife to her husband if she voluntarily had relations with another man.

"Go, gather together" (lech kenos) — assemble; and similarly [the word appears in] "likhnos et ha-gerim" ("to gather the strangers"). "Who are present in Shushan" — the city. "And fast for me" — on my behalf. "Three days" — until the third day. Now they did not eat in the evening, and they fasted two days and two nights, for Scripture writes "night" [before] "day." And Esther trusted in Hashem, her God; therefore she fasted, and did not rely on her beauty, for the face of one who fasts changes, all the more so by the third day. "And if I perish" (ve-ka'asher avadeti) — [meaning] that since I am not dwelling with my people, I am utterly lost; and the verb is in the past tense in place of the future, the sense referring to her intention, similar to "ve-ka'asher shacholti shacholti" ("and if I am bereaved, I am bereaved," Genesis 43:14).

Behold, we have written that Mordechai told Esther what had happened to him — that is, he reported to her what Elijah had said to him, included within the account, as we quoted his words above: that the Patriarchs and Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, asked Elijah for what [sin Israel] had become liable to this decree, and he told them: because they had benefited from the feast of Ahasuerus. He further informed her that a rectification (tikkun) was needed through her, to atone for [the sin of] Saul, who had caused Haman to come into the world and cause them to sin through the feast. Therefore she came like a skilled physician and said to him, "Go, gather..." etc. — meaning: "If so, then do this: whereas Haman had gathered them to the feast, you go and gather them to the fast." And let it not occur to you to do this through a messenger; rather you yourself must go and gather them — for you too are of the seed of Saul, and you must rectify what he distorted, for this is not a time to carry out the formalities of authority through a messenger. And she made it measure for measure: just as the feast had been for all the people found in Shushan the capital, so too, you gather all who are found in Shushan, and fast, etc., corresponding to that eating and drinking. Now it is fitting to take note: after she says "and fast," one would not know from this that they should neither eat nor drink; and likewise, when she says "I also..." etc., it should have said "we will fast" (natzum), and not "I will fast" (atzum), in the singular; and likewise, her word "so" (ken) appears superfluous; and likewise, her saying "and if I perish, I perish" — what is its meaning, and why is it doubled, according to the plain sense (peshat), apart from the words of our Rabbis, of blessed memory? But behold, what she said here contains a great device for having prayer answered: namely, for one person to pray on behalf of another — as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, one who prays for his fellow when he himself needs the same thing is answered first. Behold, my deliverance in coming to the king "which is not according to the law," and your deliverance for having drunk that which was "not according to the law," come as one — for in my coming before the king, I must find favor so as to give life to myself and to give life to you, and it would not be fitting for one of the two parties to be answered first. Therefore: "fast for me," and I [will fast] for you, so that we will be answered as one. This is the meaning of "and fast for me, and I also, and my maidens, will fast so" (ken) — that is, "so, as you do": just as you fast for me, I too will fast for you. This is why she said "I will fast (atzum) so," and not "we will fast" (natzum) — because her maidens did not know of this particular intention behind the fast, all the more so since they were not even of Israel, but were only fasting in accordance with her own resolve, and it was she who directed [the fast] to this purpose. Therefore she said "I will fast so," in the singular. Now, it appears from the words of our Rabbis of blessed memory that the fast days were the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth [of Nisan]. And it is possible that when she said "and fast for me," she meant: fast immediately, this very day, the thirteenth — that is, that they should stop eating while it was still day — and afterward, "and neither eat..." etc., for three days. And it is possible, according to this, that she did not mean that they should fast for her sake except for what they began on the thirteenth while it was still day; this is "and fast for me" — and afterward, for yourselves, "and neither eat..." etc., corresponding to the feast. For this comes in accordance with a reckoning, as we will explain further on, with God's help. And why [was such a reckoning needed]? Because there were two transgressions in the feast, as mentioned above: one, the eating; the other, the drinking. Now the drinking was more severe than the eating in two respects: first, that it had an aspect of idolatry in it, for it was wine used for idolatrous libations (yayin nesech); second, that it was done willingly — for regarding the drinking, the rule was "according to the law, there is no coercion" (cf. Esther 1:8): if an Israelite man were to say that his religion forbade him, no one would compel him — so that all who drank the wine did so with willful intent, which was not so with the eating. Therefore she commanded them to afflict themselves corresponding to the feast, and to direct their intent regarding the eating separately and regarding the drinking separately: for in not eating, they would direct their intent against what they had eaten at the feast, and in not drinking, they would direct their intent against what they had drunk. And since with the wine there was an element of willfulness and volition — for it was said of it, "according to the law, there is no coercion," and they transgressed the law and did what was "not according to the law" — therefore: "and I will come to the king, which is not according to the law," and I will feel the dread of death, to atone on your behalf. And I will not pay heed to the fact that I am endangering myself by coming before him — even though the law is that whoever comes uncalled, there is but one law for him: to be put to death (cf. Esther 4:11). For behold, even if the king puts me to death, I lose nothing by going; for behold, even if I hold back my steps and do not go, I will die anyway, according to your own words: "for if you keep silent... relief [and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place]... but you and your father's house will perish" (cf. Esther 4:14). Since this is so, just as I am lost if I refrain from going, I am equally lost by going — and therefore it is better to go, for it will be counted to me as a merit. It is also possible to explain her saying "and if I perish, I perish" as follows: for our Rabbis of blessed memory said that when Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, at the time Nebuchadnezzar decreed that they "shall fall down and worship," went to Ezekiel to inquire on their behalf of Hashem whether He would save them, Hashem did not listen to them — because He wished to give them the merit that they should resolve within themselves to die, rather than act in reliance on an assurance. And so they said, "But if not, let it be known to you..." (Daniel 3:18) — meaning: "our God is able to deliver us" (Daniel 3:17), etc., but it is not on that condition that we act; for even if He does not save us, "let it be known to you..." — for it is with the intent of dying for the sanctification of Hashem's Name that we come. And in this manner Esther said, "and fast for me," etc. — not that I am relying on this, that a miracle will be done for me and the king will not put me to death; rather, I am doing this even with the possibility of dying, for all my hope and all my desire concerns Israel — whether I will be able to bring them healing. As for myself, I am not concerned, for just as I have already lost a measure of the sanctity of my soul by being married to Ahasuerus, so too I will lose my body if he puts me to death — for it is with this intent that I come. Now, regarding what we wrote above, that there were two redeemers for the two categories of transgression that were in Israel's hands — the sin of the feast and the sin of the image — each of the two had his merit serve as a shield for one of these: Mordechai was a shield for the sin of the feast, and Esther for the sin of the image, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said: "Where is Esther indicated in the Torah? As it is said, 'And I will surely hide My face,' etc. (Deuteronomy 31:18)" — because they had turned to other gods. And therefore it was through her that there came the "hiding of the Face" (hester panim), in that she put herself in danger. With this, it is possible to explain that with regard to everything concerning the feast, which pertains to Mordechai, she said, "Go, gather..." etc., and "fast" — corresponding to what they ate and drank; and also, "I too will not hold back, for I will come to the king which is not according to the law" — corresponding to "[the drinking was] according to the law," [and yet they transgressed]. And regarding the matter of the image, I am concerned that, should they put me to death, I will suffer the "hiding of the Face" — for this is the meaning of "and if I perish" etc. And I think this is hinted at by the fact that the words "I will come to the king, which is not according to the law" equal, in gematria ketanah (reduced numerical value), the words "at the feast of Ahasuerus," in gematria ketanah, together with the kolel (the customary addition for the number of words). And the words "and if I perish, I perish" equal, in gematria ketanah, together with the kolel, the words "the sin of the image," in gematria ketanah. And we will write further on, with God's help, regarding the fasts being three days, and also their being night and day, corresponding to the matter of Esther's feast.

The Questions: What is [the meaning of] 'and fast for me' — would they fast on her account? And what is this, 'and if I perish, I perish' — had she not already been in peril until now? 'Go, gather' — after Mordecai assured her that, one way or another, Israel would be saved through Hashem, and that all they stood to gain from her was that through her the salvation would be hastened, she agreed to go, since her heart trusted that even if she were killed, hope would not be lost, and they would be saved through other causes. Concerning this she asked that, at the very least, they should fast on her behalf and seek mercy for her, and with this she would come to the king even against the king's law. 'And if I perish' — that is, if the king kills me for transgressing his command — behold, there would be no comprehensive harm, only I alone would perish, and relief and deliverance would stand for the Jews from another place.

"Go, gather together all the Jews" (verse 16). By this she hinted to him about prayer, that they should pray, and it is in this sense that "go, gather" is fitting — when they go to the synagogue to pray, and not each one pray in his own house, but rather it should be communal prayer (tefillat tzibbur). And so the Tosafot explained regarding what is said (Megillah 2a), "the thirteenth day is a time of gathering for all," that they would gather together to pray. And by this language that she said, "go, gather together all the Jews," it implies that he should gather them together. And this alludes to what they said in the first chapter of Berachot (8a): Rabbi Natan says, from where do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not despise the prayer of the multitude? As it is stated (Job 36:5), "Behold, God is mighty, and He does not despise," and it is written (Psalms 55:19), "He has redeemed my soul in peace from the battle that was against me, etc." The Holy One, blessed be He, said: whoever occupies himself with Torah and with acts of lovingkindness and prays with the congregation, I account it to him as if he redeemed Me and My children from among the nations of the world — thus far [the Talmudic passage]. And he also intended by this that the Shechinah is with Israel in their exile, as we have said. And even though for Him there is no subjugation, Heaven forbid, since He, may He be blessed, is with Israel, and Israel are in their exile, it is nevertheless said of Him that there is exile in this respect, because His Shechinah, may He be blessed, is with Israel. And when the people gather to Hashem, as in communal prayer, this is considered like an emergence from the scattering, since Israel are scattered among the nations, and it is considered a redemption from among the nations. And know that Israel among the nations, even if there are a thousand of them together, are called scattered among the nations. However, when they would pray they were called a "congregation" (tzibbur), when they assemble and gather to Hashem, and by this they go out from among the nations to Hashem and are elevated from among them. And furthermore, they have elevation and ascent from the nations through acts of lovingkindness (gemilut chasadim), for through acts of lovingkindness a person is raised up to Hashem, may He be blessed — for this attribute (middah), when one performs kindness and is good to creatures, thereby the person is elevated and raised up. And this matter is explained in tractate Bava Batra (10b): they asked Solomon how far the power of charity (tzedakah) extends; he answered them, etc., until (Psalms 112:9), "He has scattered abroad, he has given to the needy, etc.; his horn shall be exalted in honor." And all these matters are because acts of lovingkindness are the attribute of Abraham, who was called "a father of a multitude of nations have I made you" (Genesis 17:5), and he was a father and exalted on account of this attribute. And furthermore, still greater elevation is needed, until one is raised up from among the nations entirely, and this comes through Torah, for the Torah is elevated above everything, as the Sages said in the baraita that was taught (Avot chapter 6, 2), "Whoever occupies himself with Torah is raised up." And therefore they said (Berachot 8a): whoever occupies himself with Torah and with acts of lovingkindness and prays with the congregation, it is as if he redeemed Me and My children from among the nations. For through these three things there is here an elevation out from among them, up to the upper world. For through the gathering of one who prays with the congregation, this is a gathering-in of the scattering that exists in the lower world. And through acts of lovingkindness, and through Torah, one is elevated upward entirely, for the Torah is from the intellectual world (olam ha-sichli). And therefore through these three things they are elevated. And therefore she said, "Go, gather together all the Jews." For this matter, that they pray together, is an ingathering of the exiles (kibbutz galuyot), when they gather together to pray to Hashem, and the enemy will not have power over them. And it is not necessary that they all be together physically, only that they be turned toward Hashem — this itself is like an ingathering of the exiles, that they gather together toward Hashem. And one may also explain that this hints at the fact that they had derived enjoyment from the feast of Ahasuerus, and therefore she said "go, gather" — meaning, just as they had gathered together for his feast, now let them gather together and fast three days and nights. And therefore she also said, "and fast for me [and neither eat nor drink] three days, night and day," whereas it would have sufficed to write only "and fast for me three days, etc." Rather, corresponding to those who had eaten and drunk at the feast of Ahasuerus, correspondingly they should not eat and not drink for three days as well. And so it is in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni part 2, remez 1056), as will be explained. "And fast for me." Now, this is difficult — how is "for me" relevant here, since she meant to say that they should fast over this decree? And it appears that she meant to say this: that they should fast for me, that I may succeed when I go in before the king to plead for my people. And she did not say, "and fast three days on account of the decree of Ahasuerus," because the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Kamma 92a): one who prays on behalf of another, and he himself needs that same thing, is answered first. Therefore she said "and fast for me," [meaning] you will be answered first, since you too need this. And if they pray on my behalf, that I should succeed in going in before the king, then you will be answered. "I also and my maidens will fast, etc." One may raise a difficulty: she said "I also and my maidens," thus joining her maidens with herself, and then she said "will fast" in the first-person singular. And it appears the intent is that it was not Esther's intention that her maidens should fast, for certainly those maidens were not Jewish, but rather of another nation, since Esther did not take Jewish maidens, so that they should not know that she was Jewish. Therefore it was not Esther's intention that they should fast; she said only "I will fast." And as for her saying "I and my maidens," Esther did this so that if the king should grow angry with her and say to her, "why did you come in without permission — do you have no fear of the kingdom?" she could answer this: how could it be that I have no fear of the kingdom? For if I had no fear of the kingdom, why would I have been fasting three days and three nights, if not because I fear you — and it was for this reason that we had the fast. And if Ahasuerus did not believe her, the maidens could tell him that this was indeed so, that they had fasted three days and three nights over this. And one may also say [the reason is] that men have a gathering together in the fast, as she said, "go, gather together all the Jews," and regarding this it is fitting to say "tzumu" (fast), in the plural, since they are many gathered together. But women, who do not have a joining together, it is not fitting to say "natzum" (let us fast), as if they had an assembly together for a communal fast — but women do not have a gathering together. Therefore she did not say "natzum," which would imply fasting together, and this does not apply to women; therefore she said "I will fast," meaning each one individually. There are commentators who explain: "fast for me three days and three nights" amounts to seventy-two hours, corresponding to the numerical value of the word "bechen" (בכן). But as for me, since I must go in before the king on the third day, and it would not be proper for me to go when I am in the midst of a three-day, three-night fast — for one sitting in a fast does not look well — therefore [the verse says] "I will fast so" (atzum ken), and the word "ken" numerically equals seventy hours, because I need to eat two hours beforehand. "And so I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law." And in the Gemara (Megillah 15a), Rabbi Yirmiyah bar Abba said: "which is not according to the law" — meaning that every other day she went in under compulsion, but now willingly. He said this because it was difficult for him [to understand otherwise]: for if not so, how could she say afterward, "and if I perish, I perish" — which shows a lack of trust, since after she said "fast for me," she should have trusted in Him, may He be blessed, that nothing bad would happen to her. Therefore he explained that what she meant to say was, "and so I will come to the king, which is not according to the law," that it would be willingly. And even though this does not necessarily mean that she would be intimate with him willingly, nevertheless, she meant: I will be secluded with him willingly, and it is possible that he would be intimate with her, and so it is as if everything, too, were willing. "And if I perish, I perish." When I am lost from my father's house, I am lost from Mordechai. For I am lost from my father's house, since every woman is accustomed to being able to go to her father's house — for if her husband made a vow forbidding her from going to her father's house, he must divorce her and give her the ketubah (Ketubot 71b) — and since I am in the king's house, it is not in my power to go to my father's house. Therefore, "and if I perish, I perish." And one may also explain that it was difficult for him regarding what she said, "which is not according to the law," since it should have been written "which is not according to the law of the king" — and that is the implication there.

Mordechai passed. [I.e., he transgressed] the law by fasting on the first festive day of Pesach, for he fasted on the fourteenth, the fifteenth , and the sixteenth, for the letters were written on the thirteenth day. — Notes: (9) Otherwise, ויעבר מרדכי is apparently superfluous because the text further states that he implemented all her instructions. Alternatively, Mordechai actually went over (=ויעבר) a bridge. (Maseches Megillah 15a) (10) I.e., Pesach. Although the holiday feast is obligatory, Mordechai bypassed the obligation and ordered the fast, using the special authority of the Sanhedrin to suspend such obligations in times of extreme need. (Maseches Megillah 15a) (11) Midrash Esther Rabbah (8:7) is of the opinion that the three day fast was on the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth day of Nisan.

So Mordecai went his way, etc. — Our Sages, of blessed memory, said that he went and fasted on the first day of Passover, in accordance with Esther's statement to him, "for if there is no Israel, there is no Passover and no Torah." Except that according to the view of the Targum, the first day of Passover was the first of the three fast days, while according to the view of the Midrash it was the last, and Haman was hanged on the day after Passover. But the view of the Targum is more correct, for behold, on the thirteenth of Nisan the king's scribes were summoned and the decree was given in Shushan, and "Mordecai went out into the midst of the city, and cried with a loud and bitter cry, etc." (Esther 4:1), and it was told to Esther, and matters extended until she commanded him concerning the fasts — and it is not possible that that day, which was the thirteenth of Nisan, was included among them, for part of the day had already passed, and all the more so according to what [the Sages] of blessed memory said, that they would accept the fast upon themselves while it was still day beforehand. And if so, even if we say that it began immediately on the fourteenth, it is impossible for one day of Passover to be the third of the fast days. And it is possible to reverse this in favor of the Midrash's view, and say that before the king's scribes were summoned on the thirteenth day, there was already an agreement of the king and Haman from the twelfth day to do the thing, only that they delayed and wrote the letters on the thirteenth day. And this was because they found difficult the statement, "and Mordecai knew all that was done" (Esther 4:1) — for what did he know that everyone else did not know? Rather, he knew from the start, on the twelfth day, when Haman said to the king, "There is a certain people, etc." (Esther 3:8), and the king agreed with him before it was written and made public on the thirteenth day. And also, since it says, "and the copy of the writing of the decree that was given in Shushan he gave him to show to Esther" (Esther 4:8) — it is possible that on the twelfth day, before the king's scribes were summoned on the thirteenth, the decree was already given in Shushan, for the matter of the king's scribes was only needed for the rest of the king's provinces. And according to this, the first day of Passover was the third of the fast days, and Haman was stopped on the day after Passover. And according to the plain sense, it says, "So Mordecai went his way, etc.," in accordance with the view of the Targum. And let us examine grammatically why it states a doubled expression, and did not simply say "all that," etc. This is because she had said to him, "go, gather, etc." (Esther 4:16), that he should go immediately on the thirteenth day to gather them at once, and the fasts would begin from the fourteenth onward; but he passed over her words and did not begin the fasts except from the fifteenth. And this is the meaning of "so Mordecai went his way" — that he departed from her word in a certain respect and in another regard, "and did, etc." And this is the meaning of "ke-chol" [as all], with the letter kaf of comparison — "as all," and not "all" in essence — and his intent was so that they would prepare themselves on the fourteenth day in holiness and purity, as is fitting. And according to what our Sages of blessed memory said, that Elijah commanded him to pray immediately, for Moshe Rabbeinu, peace be upon him, was praying correspondingly, and as in Mordecai's statement, "for if you keep silent at this time" (Esther 4:14), which indicates that the matter was urgent — accordingly it says "vaya'avor" [and he passed], meaning that he passed over Elijah's command, and "did according to all that Esther commanded him" — to extend it to three days. And in saying "and did, etc.," since he was not concerned for his own honor, he himself acted to gather them, and not through a messenger, in accordance with her statement to him, "go, gather, etc."

'So he passed through all the streets of the Jews' and decreed a fast in accordance with Esther's command.

"So Mordecai went his way, etc." (verse 17). According to its plain sense, it appears that they explained "so Mordecai went his way" as departing from Esther, and immediately upon departing from her, "he did according to all," not waiting even a single hour — only as soon as he had passed from before her did "he do." And in the Gemara (Megillah 15a), Rav said: he overrode the first day of the festival of Passover with a fast. And Shmuel said: he crossed arkuma d'mayim (a water channel). They likewise scrutinized what is written, "vaya'avor" ["and he passed/crossed"], and therefore the Sages explained "vaya'avor" to mean that he went to such lengths in his fasting that he overrode the first day of Passover, saying that if there is no Israel, there is no Torah — and therefore he fasted on the first day of Passover. And Shmuel held that he went to great lengths in the act of the fast, for there was an obstacle preventing him so that he could not bring them to the fast, and he crossed a water channel in order to bring them to the fast. For we have already said that the fast requires that there be an assembly, and he exerted himself and crossed a water channel to gather them, and therefore it is written "vaya'avor." And you should know that what he said, that "he crossed a water channel," contains a profound hint. He meant to say that he pushed aside and passed by the accuser of Israel — namely the Satan, who comes to sweep everything away — and that he passed through the power of the nations, who are called "many waters," as it is written (Song of Songs 8:7), "Many waters cannot extinguish love," and they are called this because they come to sweep away Israel. And he passed by the obstacles that interpose between Israel and their Father in Heaven, as it is written (Lamentations 3:44), "You have covered Yourself with a cloud, so that prayer should not pass through." And this is what is meant by saying that he crossed a water channel: these are the accusers, the adversaries, who sweep [everything] away. And in a similar way, Abraham had a water channel when he went to slaughter his son Isaac, as is stated in tractate Sanhedrin. And here too he crossed a water channel — these obstacles, the accusers and adversaries who hinder, are called "a water channel." And therefore it is written "so Mordecai crossed," meaning that he passed the water channel through his fast — understand this. "And fast for me three days, etc." (verse 16). As to why Esther said "fast for me three days" — this is because [three days] constitute a multiplicity of days, as the Sages said (Torat Kohanim, Leviticus 15:25), "'days' means two, 'many' means three." And the Holy One, blessed be He, does not leave the righteous in distress for more than three days, for this reason: since three constitutes a multiplicity of days, and it is not the attribute (midah) of Hashem that the righteous should be in distress continually. And if the righteous is in distress for some [lesser] time, this is not difficult, for it is impossible that there not be some deficiency in the righteous. But that he should be in distress for three days, which is called "many," as though he were continually in distress — the Holy One, blessed be He, does not leave the righteous in distress of this kind. And so they said in the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 56:1): "On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from afar" (Genesis 22:4); "He will revive us after two days, on the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live before Him" (Hosea 6:2). On the third day of the tribes, as it is said (Genesis 42:18), "And Joseph said to them on the third day." On the third day of the giving of the Torah, as it is said (Exodus 19:16), "And it came to pass on the third day, when it was morning." On the third day of the spies, [as it is said] (Joshua 2:16), "And hide yourselves there three days." On the third day of Jonah, as it is said (Jonah 2:1), "And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days." On the third day of those who went up from the exile [as it is written (Ezra 8:32), "And we remained there three days." On the third day of the resurrection of the dead, as it is said] (Hosea 6:2), "He will revive us after two days, [on the third day He will raise us up]." On the third day of Esther, as it is said (below, 5:1), "And it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on royalty." By what merit? The Rabbis say: by the merit of "on the third day" of the giving of the Torah (Exodus 19:16). And Rabbi Levi says: by the merit of "the third day" of Abraham (Genesis 22:4). [End of citation.] So you see that it is not fitting for the righteous to be in distress for more than three days, for the reason we have stated. And as to why they disagree concerning (below, 5:1) "And it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on royalty" — by what merit — one authority [holds] by the merit of the third day of the giving of the Torah, and the other says by the merit of "and it came to pass on the third day" of Abraham — this matter is deep and profound. And from this you will also understand what they said (Genesis Rabbah 91:7), that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not leave the righteous in distress for more than three days. For Israel has attachment (deveikut) to Hashem by virtue of the righteousness and justice found in them, and therefore they are attached to Him, blessed be He, for all that is with Him is entirely righteousness (yosher). And in three there is righteousness, for every set of three has a middle, and the middle is the righteousness, while the two [outer members] are the extremes. And therefore it is not fitting for the righteous to be in distress for more than three days, since in three there is the attribute of justice (middat ha-tzedek), which is the attribute of righteousness, and it is by virtue of this that the righteous has attachment with Hashem. And they disagree as to the aspect from which the attachment to Him, blessed be He, is greater: for one authority, this attachment comes from the side of the Torah, which is intellectual (sikhlit), and it is from this aspect that there is attachment to Him, blessed be He. And certainly they were masters of Torah and studied Torah constantly, and therefore Hashem brought them out of this distress. And for the other authority, the attachment to Him, blessed be He, comes from the fact that they fasted and prayed to Hashem. And each of them has a very profound reasoning: for one, [the merit is] the giving of the Torah, since the Torah is intellectual, and it is fitting that from this aspect there be the complete attachment to Him, blessed be He. And for the other, the Binding of Isaac (Akeidah) is fitting for this, since Isaac surrendered his soul to Hashem completely, and this is the complete attachment. And at that time they were fasting and diminishing their soul and their blood, and this is the matter of the Akeidah — that just as Isaac surrendered his soul to Hashem, so too this is counted as though they had offered up their souls to Hashem. And their dispute is a matter that is exceedingly wondrous. And as to what she said, "and fast for me three days, night and day, and neither eat nor drink" — this is difficult: it is obvious that if they fast, they will not eat or drink, so why was it necessary to write it? According to the plain sense, one may explain that this is what she meant: if the fast became known to them before it began, then let them fast for me, and this would be [a proper] fast. But if it was not known [in advance] and they had not accepted the fast — even if they had not accepted the fast — let them not eat and not drink; and even if the majority had not accepted the fast, let them not eat and not drink. And this is why she said "fast for me," so that they would be drawn along after her: since I have accepted the fast and decreed the fast upon the entire community, it is as though they had accepted it upon themselves, and they should not eat and not drink. But in the Midrash it is explained that she hinted to them that the fast should be repentance (teshuvah) for what they had eaten and drunk at the feast of Ahasuerus, and correspondingly they should not eat and not drink, and they would have a fast in order to atone for their sin — and this would be their intent. And this is what they said in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther, remez 1056): "'Fast for me, and do not eat and do not drink' — but does a person have a fast and yet eat? Rather, you fasted because you ate and drank from the feast of Ahasuerus." But how could they fast three days, night and day, and not die? Rather, they would break the fast before nightfall [each day]. And why three days? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not leave the righteous in distress for more than three days. And so it says (Joshua 2:16), "And hide yourselves there three days." And so too you find regarding Nineveh. And the explanation of this Midrash is as we have said: that Esther hinted to them what the intent of this fast would be. And she said that the intent would be that they should not eat and drink, and by this they would do repentance for having eaten and drunk at the feast of Ahasuerus. And he said that only three days in distress are required, and indeed there is here part of the first day, all of the second, and part of the third. And this too is counted as though there were three days in distress, and therefore it is stated regarding this that there were three days in distress, and Hashem heard their prayer. And so the verse proves this, for it says "and neither eat nor drink three days, night and day," whereas it should have written "three days and three nights." Rather, this was not [a full] three days; only that part of a day is counted as the whole of it, and therefore it says "night and day" — for the entire fast consisted only of "a night and a day," [meaning] that they would break the fast before nightfall, and likewise [only] part of a night. And on which day of the month the fast fell will be explained further on, on the verse "And the king said," see there.