Esther · Chapter 5

In majesty. Regal clothing. But our Rabbis said that Divine Inspiration enwrapped her, as it is says, “And a spirit enwrapped Amasai.” — Notes: (1) Maseches Megillah 14b. The text should have stated בגדי מלכות [regal clothing]. The inference is that she was cloaked in majesty itself, i.e., in Divine Majesty. (2) I Divrei Hayomim 12:19.

"And Esther put on royalty" (vatilbash Esther malchut) — the meaning is "royal apparel," since the word "vatilbash" itself conveys adornment. She entered the inner court, and the gatekeepers could say nothing to her, because she was the queen.

Behold, the word "vayehi" (and it came to pass) is superfluous, and it would have been fitting to simply say, "On the third day, etc." But "vayehi" indicates a being that was newly renewed. And furthermore, it should have said "royal garments" [in the plural], for which reason our Sages, of blessed memory, needed to say that she clothed herself with the holy spirit, which is the Kingdom of Heaven. And also, what is the meaning of "and she stood in the court, etc."? For according to our Sages, of blessed memory, this means that she prayed there, standing. However, it may be explained that it says "and she put on, etc.," along the lines of what our Sages, of blessed memory, said regarding the verse, "I put on righteousness, and it clothed me" (Job 29:14) — for our Sages, of blessed memory, said: I clothed myself in righteousness, and righteousness clothed itself in me, for I was fitting to righteousness, and righteousness was fitting to me, like a person who is becoming to his garment, and his garment is becoming to him. And in this manner it says, "and it came to pass on the third day, etc.," to say: behold, until now the kingship was not fitting to Esther, because she was exiled and turned away, like all the women of Israel who were in the exile of Media — and how could she succeed at royalty? For this reason it was puzzling in Mordecai's eyes, and he would walk daily before the court of the house of the women, to know what would be done with her, for it was not for nothing that she had attained royalty. And upon seeing the evil of Haman the Agagite, he then said to her, "and who knows whether you have attained royalty for such a time as this" (Esther 4:14), as mentioned above, that he said: from nowhere and for no apparent purpose you attained royalty, while all Israel remains in exile — but this is only for such a time as this, that you should shield your father's house and place yourself in danger on their behalf. And therefore he said that her entire attainment of royalty was not truly fitting to her, except for such a time as this, that she should endanger herself on behalf of Israel. It thus follows that until that time the kingship was not fitting to her and did not clothe itself upon her. And this is the meaning of "and it came to pass on the third day" — that she went and endangered herself on behalf of her people; then she acquired a new existence. And this is the meaning of "Esther put on royalty" — for then she clothed herself with an aspect of royalty, and it became fitting to her, because it was for such a time as this that she attained royalty — unlike what was the case at first, when the kingship was to her like a borrowed thing and was not truly fitting to her. And what did she do upon reaching the inner court, where there was the boundary of being liable to death for one who is not called and yet comes, as it says, "any man or woman, etc. ... there is but one law for him, that he be put to death" (Esther 4:11)? She stood, stationed, and did not go further, so that the king would see her and take it to heart, thinking: behold, if a lack of modesty had caused her to come, why then does she stand and not come immediately inward? And why did she not stand still before reaching the inner court at all? But this is only as if she were saying: behold, I have reached the boundary where the one who enters is liable to death; therefore, if it is good in your eyes, behold, I shall die before I draw further inward. And by this, there would be removed from before his eyes what our Sages, of blessed memory, said — that he said, "Woe for those who are lost" (chaval al de-avdin), for Vashti did not wish to come, and this one comes to me of her own accord. But by standing still, he might instead say: if it was in her heart to seek out her kinsman, why did she not come and willingly go in to die there? But is this not the matter — that her soul was bitter within her, and she stood, stationed, as if to say, "I am dying." And He, may He be blessed, in His abundant mercy upon her and upon His people, saw and arranged that the king should be sitting opposite the entrance of the house, so that he would see her face himself, and not through a messenger saying, "behold, Esther is standing in the court" — for upon seeing her face, before anyone spoke a word to him, she would find grace and favor before him, for a thread of grace was drawn over her face, and every tongue that might rise up to speak rebelliously against her would be silenced. But if he had not seen her face, and it had become known to him only through a messenger, then it would not be beyond those who stood before the king to slander her for having entered without permission, and also her grace would not be in his eyes, for he had not seen her face. Therefore this came from Hashem — that the king should be sitting opposite the entrance of the house, so that he would see her immediately. And therefore, "and it was, when [the king] saw... etc.," "she obtained favor in his eyes" — unlike what would have happened had he not seen her face, as stated.

The Questions: It should have said 'royal garments' [bigdei malchut] — what is the difference between 'the king's house' and 'the royal house'? 'And Esther put on royalty' — the royalty put her on, and it fit her as though tailored to measure, so that all who saw her recognized that royalty suited her, in the manner of (Job 29:14) 'I put on righteousness, and it clothed me.' 'And she stood... and the king was sitting' — the royal house was near the courtyard, where he would sit on his throne to judge the people, and within it, further inward, was the king's house — the chambers set aside for his personal needs — where he would sit always, whenever he was not engaged in the affairs of governing the people. Therefore Esther stood facing the king's house, which was designated for him personally; but through Hashem's providence, it happened that the king was now sitting in the royal house, which is near the courtyard, and it also happened that he had placed the throne facing the entrance of the house, in such a way that he saw her immediately.

"Esther put on royalty" (Esther 5:1) — and it is not written "royal garments," because even a commoner can wear royal garments. But Esther, who was a queen — when she puts on royal garments and she is a queen, in this case it is fitting to say that she put on royalty completely. And with regard to another queen, it would be fitting to say "she put on royal garments," for although she is a queen, nevertheless she is not fully fit for royalty; therefore it is not fitting to say "she put on royalty" of another queen — only of Esther, who was fully fit for royalty, is it fitting to say of her "she put on royalty." And in the Gemara (Megillah 15a): "And it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on royalty" — it should have said "royal garments"! Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Chanina: this teaches that she put on the Holy Spirit (ruach ha-kodesh). It is written here "put on," and it is written there (I Chronicles 12:18) "and the spirit clothed Amasai." And the explanation of this is: when Esther put on the royal garments, as we said, in doing so she also put on the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit was clothing her — the Holy Spirit rested upon her. And therefore it is likewise written "and the spirit clothed Amasai," for the spirit was clothing Amasai, since the spirit rested upon him. So too, "Esther put on royalty" means that when she put on royalty, the Holy Spirit then rested upon her. "And she stood in the court of the king's house" — and in the Midrash (Midrash Tehillim, Psalm 22): "Be not far from me, for trouble is near" (Psalms 22:12) — when did Esther say "Be not far from me"? At the time Ahasuerus decreed to destroy, kill, and annihilate, Esther entered without permission, as it says, "and she stood in the court of the king's house." The king had seven kanklin (latticed chambers) — she entered without permission through the first, the second, and the third. When she had entered halfway into the fourth kankal, he began grinding his teeth and raging. He said: "Woe for one who is lost and cannot be found again! As for Vashti, how greatly I desired and requested that she come before me, and she was unwilling — and this one comes in like a harlot, without permission!" She stood herself in the middle of the kankal. The first [guards] could not endanger her, since she had already passed beyond their jurisdiction; the middle [guards] could not detain her, since she had not yet passed beyond their jurisdiction — and they pondered over her. And the explanation of this is: it was difficult [to understand] what entered Esther's mind that she should come before the king, for surely every king has guards at the entrance, and if so the guards would not allow her to enter so as to transgress the king's decree — so how did this happen, that the guards let her enter? Therefore this [midrash] explained that there were seven kanklin, that is, the king had seven entrances, one within the other. Now had there been [only] one entrance, the guard sitting at that entrance would be obligated to see to it that no one enters there, for that is the very reason he is a guard over it. But here there were seven kanklin, and therefore the first [guards], when she entered, would say: "It is not for us to protest, since she has already entered; this matter falls upon those who guard in the middle, not upon us." And the middle [guards] said: "It is not upon us," since she had not yet passed beyond the middle ones. And when she had passed beyond the middle ones, they said she had already passed beyond their jurisdiction. And because Esther is a queen, each one was afraid to act against her, and each one would cast [the responsibility] onto the other — "he goes here and is turned away, he goes there and is turned away" (based on Mo'ed Katan 15b). But as for Ahasuerus, who had stationed them, his intent was that all seven should be guards, and even though they are divided [into separate posts], all of them are for one single guard-duty, and they are seven guards acting together; therefore the guarding falls upon all of them together. And therefore the middle [guards] could not detain her, since she had not yet passed beyond their jurisdiction. And had the seven guards been [considered] one, the middle [guards] could have said, "Why did you let her pass beyond the first ones?" Only because Esther is a queen did they themselves divide [the responsibility], saying that there are seven separate guard-posts, and therefore the middle ones could not say so.

"And it was" (vayehi) — this word is superfluous; it would have been fitting to say "and when the king saw" (u-khir'ot ha-melekh). But by the way of our Sages of blessed memory, who said that at first his wrath burned against her and afterward He, may He be blessed, turned his heart and changed it for the good, it says "vayehi kir'ot" (and it was, when he saw), meaning that there was "woe" (vai) and trouble at the moment of "seeing," etc. — that is, at the very beginning of the sight, for he had not yet looked upon her in essence; this is why it says "kir'ot" with the kaf of comparison [i.e., approximation]. But immediately, when he did look at her, "she obtained favor" (nas'ah chen), etc., for at the beginning of the gaze it was not yet so. And this is also because he himself saw her face before it was told to him by a messenger, as will be discussed shortly. It is also possible to explain the word "vayehi" in another way: behold, when the king saw the woman coming to his house of her own accord, would this not have been very displeasing to him — all the more so in light of what our Sages of blessed memory said, that he had remembered Vashti and said, "Woe for what is lost" (chaval al de'avdin)? But he answered this in his own heart: since he saw her standing, stationed in the court, he thought, "If her intention were to seek love through a lack of modesty, why did she stand in the court and not come all the way in? Why did she not delay before setting her feet in the inner court, whose law it is to put to death — thereby awakening her own soul to death?" Rather, this must be as if she were saying, "Behold, I am ready to die if it please you, for I have already reached the place whose law is to put to death one who comes uncalled; yet it never occurred to me to come into the king's inner chamber until I should see what he would do — whether he would put me to death for my coming." Therefore the king would say, "Surely there is something to this" — namely, that her standing in the court was itself the cause of her obtaining favor in his eyes. This is [the meaning of] "and when the king saw Esther standing in the court, she obtained favor," etc. — for the sight of her face alone did not suffice; her standing in the court, too, contributed to her finding favor, as stated. And its saying "nas'ah chen" (she carried favor) rather than "matz'ah chen" (she found favor) is because reason alone would have dictated that his kindness toward her would be great enough not to put her to death, granting her her life, since she had come in a manner not according to law; but a doubled kindness — namely, granting her request on behalf of Israel — is a wonder. For it would have been possible for him to say to her, "Behold, I have shown you favor, but only this once, so as not to put you to death; and be warned not to do such a thing again, coming when uncalled — so be done with your words, and do not ask concerning your people." Therefore it does not say "she found favor in his eyes" but "she carried favor" (nas'ah chen) — for in his eyes she was like one carrying a burden (masa) of favor upon her, sufficient for many things, as if to say to her, "What is your request?" etc. And in the Gemara: "And it was when the king saw Esther the queen" — Rabbi Yochanan said: three ministering angels were made ready for her at that moment — one who raised her neck, one who drew a thread of kindness over her, and one who stretched out the scepter. And how much [was it stretched]? Rabbi Yirmeya said: it was two cubits, and they extended it to twelve; and some say to sixteen; and some say to twenty-four; in a baraita it is taught: to sixty. And so, too, you find regarding the forearm of Pharaoh's daughter, etc. Rabbah bar Ofran said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher: two hundred. Now it is fitting to take to heart what led them to say that three angels were made ready for her, when there is no hint of this in the verse — not even of one. Now, regarding Hagar the maidservant of Sarai, and regarding Joseph, our Sages of blessed memory said that angels were made ready for each of them, and this was because in each of their cases the word "vayomer" (and he/it said) is stated several times; therefore they said that with each utterance there was an angel — which is not so here. Furthermore, in saying that one angel raised her neck — what need was there for the raising of her neck? Furthermore, in saying that one drew a thread of kindness [over her] — surely she already had a thread of kindness from before; who brought it forth so that it should come now? Furthermore, the verse mentions only "favor" (chen) — who has even mentioned "kindness" (chesed) here? Furthermore, in saying that one stretched out the scepter — who told them that it was stretched, and moreover that it was done by an angel? And also, why was it stretched, when its length of two cubits should have sufficed? Furthermore, one must give a reason for the measurements stated — indeed, what is the point of the dispute, and what does knowing the precise measurement add or contribute? It would have sufficed for us to know simply that it was stretched to the place where she stood, so that she drew near and touched its top. However, the verse did in fact raise a difficulty for them. One: it says "vayehi kir'ot" (and it was, when he saw) — the word "vayehi" is superfluous, and it should properly have said "and the king saw her" (va-tir'eha ha-melekh). Further: it says "nas'ah chen" and not "matz'ah chen." Further: it says "vayoshet ha-melekh le-Ester" (and the king held out [the scepter] to Esther) — it should have said "vayoshet lah ha-melekh" (and the king held it out to her), since it is already speaking of Esther. Further: it says "va-tikrav va-tiga" (and she drew near and touched), etc., which are unnecessary words. And furthermore: was not the king seated in the royal house facing the entrance of the house, and there is no doubt that his throne was not in the middle of the house but rather set against the wall opposite the entrance — so that the empty space of the house lay between the king and the entrance? And she, too, was standing at the very start of her entry into the court before the house. Now, the term "va-tikrav" (she drew near) signifies only a [partial] approach — which is why it does not say "va-tavo" (she entered). If so, then how, by a mere approach, did she touch the top of the scepter? For, in general, the way of a king's scepter is to be only two or three cubits long, and how, with the entire width of the empty space of the house and the whole breadth of the courtyard between the king and her, could she, by a mere approach, touch the top of the scepter? Therefore they said three things, one for each difficulty. Concerning the first, from the phrase "vayehi kir'ot" — that a new state of being (havayah chadashah) had come about: that since there was in fact a considerable distance between the king's seat and the place where she stood, the sight of his eyes could not, by itself, from his place, take full hold of her; and it was necessary that the king see her and gaze upon her before he knew of the matter through a messenger — lest he judge her with a sentence of death and not allow her to enter — unlike when he sees her directly and she carries favor, as she does in the eyes of all who behold her. Therefore, before anyone could get ahead of her [with a report], her neck was raised, so that the sight of his eyes would take hold of her before he knew of it through a messenger, lest his heart change, as has been said. And concerning the phrase "nos'et chen" (carrying favor) — the second difficulty — he explained that a thread of kindness, in addition to the favor she already possessed of herself, was now drawn upon her, to intensify the favor; this is [the meaning of] "nas'ah chen" — that it was like a burden (masa) of favor placed upon her — and the addition beyond what she had before is kindness (chesed). This is because she needed not only favor to save her life from death, but also that the king look upon her with a good eye so as to save her from the trouble into which she had come, having endangered herself in her bitterness of soul. For there is no doubt that the king would say in his heart, "A dread of death has fallen upon her, and she has come to be delivered from it — yet in doing so she has incurred another sentence of death." And though favor sufficed for the one danger, kindness was needed for her regarding the other. And should you ask, did she not already possess this too, as it says, "and she obtained favor and kindness before him," etc. — the answer is: [regarding] the thread of kindness drawn upon her, it is true that she had a degree of kindness in her own right as well, but now a measure of kindness was drawn down upon her literally from above, without interruption — meaning, to attain a kindness greater than what came before. For at first the measure of kindness she possessed was greater than that of all other women, enough to have her chosen in marriage, but not enough to bring her from death to life, as was needed now, when she had made herself liable to death before the king — all the more so in light of what our Sages of blessed memory said, that at first he had said, "Woe for what is lost," concerning Vashti, who, out of her great modesty, had refused to come, etc. So, until now, the kindness she carried had sufficed for her; but now it was necessary to draw supernal kindness down upon her from the attribute of His kindness, may He be blessed. And concerning the other difficulties — the word "le-Ester" [being unnecessary], and likewise the phrase "va-tikrav va-tiga," etc., seemingly without need, and also how she touched, from where she was standing, by mere approach, the top of the scepter that the king held out to her from his fixed seat — the answer to all this is that it was stretched, as stated. This is why it says "le-Ester" — that from his place he extended it all the way to Esther, to the point that she needed only to draw near and touch the top of the scepter by a mere approach; and this can only be because it was stretched, as said. And each of these things was done by a single, [different] angel, for one angel does not perform two missions, as is known. Now, the matter of the three things done by these angels is this: she needed three things. One, to be saved from death for having come in a manner not according to law. Two, to be saved from Haman's decrees, for she too was included in the sale [of the Jews]. Three, to save also her people, since it had already been written and sealed in the king's name to destroy them, etc. — which cannot be reversed. Therefore, corresponding to these three needs, three things were required for the matter to come out rightly. One: that the king should not learn, through a messenger, that the queen had come to the court, before the king himself saw her — for indeed, her coming in a manner not according to law made her liable to death; and so, when he gazed upon her face and she carried favor in the eyes of all who beheld her, his compassion was stirred for her — unlike if it had been reported to him by a messenger, in which case his wrath would have burned within him and he would not have allowed her to be seen by him, since "in the light of the king's face is life." Therefore it was necessary to raise her neck, so that from his fixed place he would take notice and gaze upon her. Second: it was necessary that the presence of favor be sufficient to give life to her soul — that he look upon her in a way that would save her from the death for which, in her bitterness of soul, she had come, seeking to escape it — which is a greater [salvation] than the previous favor, as discussed. Therefore an angel was needed to draw a thread of kindness from the place of the glory of His kindness, may He be blessed, from above, so that she would be saved also from this second death. But even this was still not sufficient to grant her request also concerning her people, for he could have said to her, "Let it suffice you that your life is granted to you as spoil; be silent, and do not ask concerning your people" — all the more so since he could say, "What has been written cannot be reversed; how could I reverse it now?" Therefore God arranged that his eyes should behold the stretching of the scepter, so that he would take note and perceive that this could only be the finger of God — to teach him that just as the king extends the golden scepter, as it naturally is, to one who comes uncalled, and this suffices to give life to that person's soul, so the King of the universe, may He be blessed — beyond what the king himself extended — stretched it and drew it out several cubits further; so, too, should the king extend to her the favor of extending her requests as well, to be granted to her in addition to her being granted life. And although it is not our practice to pursue numerical calculations, nevertheless I shall not refrain from mentioning what Hashem has brought to our hand in this matter: the acronym of "vayehi kir'ot ha-melekh et Ester ha-malkah omedet be-chatzer" ("and it was when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court") totals one hundred ten, like the numerical value of "malakh" (angel) — the first — together with the collective count. And the acronym of "nas'ah chen be-einav" ("she obtained favor in his eyes") totals, by the reduced count, fifteen, like the numerical value of the acronym of "malakh chesed" (angel of kindness) — the second. And the acronym of "vayoshet ha-melekh le-Ester" ("the king held out [the scepter] to Esther") totals fourteen, like the acronym of this, the third angel. And it asked, "how much" — meaning, what merit was found for Israel through the lengthening of the scepter, that her request on their behalf should find favor, since the stretching pertained to what concerned them, for there is no doubt that this is hinted at in the measure of the stretching. And Rabbi Yirmeya said it was two cubits, and they extended it to twelve — this is because at first there was only the merit of Mordechai and Esther, and it sufficed only for themselves; but now, through Esther's coming, it was stretched and enlarged for the sake of Israel, up to twelve, which is the merit of the twelve tribes. And some say to sixteen, meaning that the merit of the Patriarchs, who number three, was also needed, together with the thirteen tribes — for Joseph was divided into two, Ephraim and Menasheh, like Reuben and Simeon. And some say to twenty-four, meaning that only the merit of the Torah stood for them, which is the twenty-four books [of Scripture]. And some say sixty, referring to the Oral Torah, which consists of sixty tractates — for it was then that the Oral Torah was established upon its proper footing, as our Sages of blessed memory said in the Gemara, regarding the verse "and they stood at the foot of the mountain": this teaches that He overturned the mountain over them like an [inverted] cask, etc. And they raise a difficulty in the Gemara: from here [arises] a great protest of duress (moda'a rabba) against the Torah! And they answer: they returned and accepted it willingly in the days of Ahasuerus, as it is said, "the Jews confirmed and accepted," etc. — "they confirmed" what they had already accepted. And [the Sages] of blessed memory explained, in the Tanchuma, in this very passage, in Parashat Noach, that the overturning of the mountain like a cask upon them applied only to the Oral Torah, for that alone they were reluctant to accept; and it is this that they confirmed in the days of Ahasuerus, following the events of the days of Purim, for themselves and for their descendants — matters that are of Rabbinic origin. And the view of Rabbah bar Ofran, etc., is that it was only by the merit of the Divine Presence (Shechinah) that was with them, and Hashem acted for the sake of Her honor; and therefore it was stretched two hundred cubits — for behold, She is called "Elohim" (God), whose numerical value comes to two hundred, following the squared reckoning: "Alef" is one, and "El" — behold, thirty-two; and in this manner the whole Name comes to two hundred. And it is known to those who understand these things that the number two hundred, reckoned in this way, is an indication of exile and distress. Now, regarding what we have cited from the words of our Sages of blessed memory, that the scepter was stretched, it is possible to say that this explains the phrase "va-tiga be-rosh ha-sharvit" (and she touched the top of the scepter). For according to what our Sages of blessed memory said, it is necessarily implied by the text itself — as they said that an angel came and stretched the scepter, and all the more so according to the view that says sixty cubits or two hundred. Now, it would have been possible that this was so only in outward appearance, and that it did not actually lengthen beyond its ordinary measure in reality. Therefore, upon seeing this, [the meaning of] "va-tikrav" (and she drew near) is that she drew near to see whether there was substance at the top of the scepter, at the end of that length — and she found substance in it. This is [the meaning of] "va-tikrav va-tiga" (and she drew near and touched) — for by the mere approach that she made, she touched the top of the scepter in actual fact, for its tip had reached that very place, and the lengthening was not merely an appearance to the eyes but an act of Heaven. And this is [the meaning of] "va-tiga" (and she touched) — for touch cannot rightly be said of something that has no substance. And by this she concluded in her heart that Hashem was with her, to help her.

'And it was so' — this relates that, out of the king's love for Esther, it had never occurred to him that this decree — that no man should enter the king's inner court without permission — would include Esther as well; for her coming to him, even into his royal chamber, was dear and precious to him, and he never imagined at all that she would need to stand in the court and wait until he extended the scepter to her. Therefore, when the king saw Esther — even though she was Esther the queen, and this decree did not apply to her — nevertheless, in her humility she stood in the court and did not enter within; because of this she found favor in his eyes, for he saw that this was only out of the righteous humility in her heart. He did her will and extended to her the golden scepter. And it relates that it happened that the scepter was in his hand at that time, which was also an unusual thing, and this was through the providence of the God who watches over [all].

"And it was so, when the king saw..." (verse 2). As for why it was necessary to go back and write "standing in the court" — do we not already know that she was standing in the court? Rather, a reason is given for the matter: this is why she did not consider herself one who transgresses the king's decree. And concerning this it says that he saw her standing in the court, and she did not come [further] to the king — and this shows the dread of the kingship, for this is why she stood and waited until the king's scepter should reach her. This is why she did not enter, and this is why he held out the scepter to her. And it says "she obtained favor in his eyes" (nasah chen), and does not say, as it said above (2:17), "and she obtained favor and kindness before him" (va-tisa chen va-chesed lefanav). For here it wants to say that she obtained a special favor that had not existed before this, and existed only at that moment. This is why it says "nasah" [she obtained], which is past-tense language — [meaning] it was not so afterward, nor before this. For even though it is already written "and she obtained favor and kindness before him," here she had an addition of favor, and this thing was renewed now, for the moment. Whereas if it were written "va-tehi Esther nosat chen be'einav" [and Esther was continually obtaining favor in his eyes], this would imply that she was always obtaining this favor in his eyes. But here it speaks only of the present moment, and therefore it is fitting to say here "nasah" — [indicating] an addition of favor that was only for the moment — and this is why he held out to her the scepter. And even though it says that he saw her standing in the court and she did not want to come to the king, nevertheless this by itself does not suffice to bring the scepter to reach her; rather, what caused the king not to become angry was that she did not come to the king immediately, and it was because of the favor she obtained that he would forgo the law for her, since she had obtained favor before him. This is why here it is written only "she obtained favor," and "kindness" is not written; whereas above it is written (2:17) "and she obtained favor and kindness before him" — for favor (chen) is what one finds immediately upon seeing her, as is implied everywhere; and here, since it speaks only of that particular moment, it is written "she obtained favor." But above, where it says "and she obtained favor and kindness," which speaks of how this was always so, it says "and kindness" — for kindness (chesed) applies when she is comely and gracious in her deeds, and this is why "kindness" is fitting there, and this is not seen immediately. "And the king held out to Esther the golden scepter that was in his hand." It was necessary to write "that was in his hand" — for the scepter is certainly in his hand; rather, this comes to say that the scepter was in the king's hand, and when it reaches him [the one who transgressed], it gives him life. This is because the scepter is the power of kingship, as it is written (Genesis 49:10), "The scepter shall not depart from Judah." And this teaches that the scepter is in the king's hand. And when he holds out the scepter to him, it gives him life — even though he is liable to death for having transgressed the king's statute and law — nevertheless there is power in the king's hand to give life. And he must touch the top of the scepter; for if the king were to touch him with the scepter while he himself did not touch the top of the scepter, it would be as though he were not seeking to receive life from the king, and it is not fitting that he receive life when he himself does not seek it. This is why he must touch the top of the scepter — meaning that he is seeking to receive life. And further, one may explain that the scepter indicates the spreading-forth of life from the king, for the scepter extends outward from the king, and in the scepter the king's power is seen, since he strikes with it, and his power gives life. This is why it says "that was in his hand" — for the hand is the power that comes from a person, and the scepter extends even further than the hand, and this indicates the greatness of the extension, [reaching] even one who has no [claim to] life — such as one who is liable to death — yet nevertheless the king is able to give him life. And so it is demonstrated in the Gemara (Megillah 15b), as we will explain. "And it was so, when the king saw..." In the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1056): once he saw her, he turned his face away, and the ministering angels held his face up against his will, and he cried out, "Vai, vai!" [Woe, woe!]. "When the king saw" — because a blindness had come over his eyes, and when he saw her, his eyes lit up, and he held out the scepter to her, but Esther did not have the strength to touch it. And some say that Michael drew her and brought her to touch the top of the scepter. Thus far [the Midrash]. They analyzed the language, [noting] that it should not have needed to write "vayehi" [and it was], and also should not have needed to write "when the king saw Esther" — for certainly he saw her — and it should have needed to write only "and he held out to her the golden scepter." Therefore they expounded here, as they expound everywhere that the word "vayehi" is written, that it is an expression of "vai" [woe] (Megillah 11a), as was explained above at the start of the Megillah. And this "woe" was because Ahasuerus wanted to turn his face away from Esther, and the angel held his face up against his will, so that he could not remove his face from her. And a thing that a person does not enjoy seeing, because it is against his will, is described as his having a "blindness" — for when he does not want to see, it is considered that he has a blindness. And when the angel held Ahasuerus's eyes fixed upon Esther so that he would see her, [then] Ahasuerus's eyes lit up. This is why it is written, "vayehi kir'ot et Esther nasah chen" [and it was, when he saw Esther, she obtained favor] — meaning that he saw her not in the manner of ordinary sightings, but rather that his eyes lit up, and it was because of this that she obtained favor in his eyes. And all this comes to say that the entire redemption was from Hashem, may He be blessed; for even though Ahasuerus loved Esther very much, nevertheless here, since this was to be the beginning of the redemption — for from this moment the redemption kept continually increasing until it became a complete redemption — it is not fitting that the beginning of the redemption come from the wicked Ahasuerus, but only from Hashem, may He be blessed. This is why it is written "vayehi kir'ot ha-melech et Esther" — to Ahasuerus it was a "woe" for Ahasuerus, but rather Hashem, may He be blessed, did this against Ahasuerus's will and lit up his eyes, and with this came the beginning of the redemption's emergence into actuality. And further, in the Midrash (Megillah 15b): Rabbi Yochanan said, three angels presented themselves to him at that moment — one who raised her neck, one who stretched over her a thread of kindness, and one who stretched out the scepter. Thus far. And they analyzed this from the fact that it is written "vayehi kir'ot ha-melech et Esther" — which it should not have needed to write, since it was already written above (verse 1), "and she stood in the inner court of the king's house, opposite the king's house, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the house of royalty, opposite the entrance of the house," and it should have needed to write immediately, "and the king held out to her the scepter." Rather, it comes to say "vayehi kir'ot ha-melech et Esther," because logically he should not have seen her — for even though the king was sitting there, nevertheless Esther's face was lowered, and it was not possible for the king to gaze upon her. Therefore the angel raised her neck, until he was gazing upon her face. And one stretched over her a thread of kindness — for otherwise there would have been no need to write "nasah chen" [she obtained favor], since this was already written above (2:17), "and she obtained favor and kindness before him more than all the maidens." Rather, the angel came and stretched over her a thread of kindness more and more. And one stretched out the scepter — for otherwise there would have been no need to write "and she touched the top of the scepter," and it should have needed to write only what Ahasuerus did, that he held out to her the scepter, as it is written above (4:11), "except him to whom the king shall hold out the golden scepter, that he may live." Therefore it should have needed to write only "and the king held out to her the golden scepter." Rather, it comes to teach that he stretched the scepter until the scepter reached Esther. Now one might ask: from where [do we know] that there were three angels — perhaps it was all a single angel? And furthermore, why was it necessary to have three angels, rather than having one single angel do all of this? And if we should say that this is because a single angel does not perform two errands (Genesis Rabbah 50:2), as was the case with Abraham, where there were three angels because a single angel does not perform two errands — we have already explained there that with Abraham there were three angels because the errands were not alike to one another, as is explained there; but here, why was it necessary to have three angels? It appears that the reason there were three angels is this: that now [the moment had come] to join and attach Esther to Ahasuerus, and from this the redemption would emerge. And the joining is in three aspects: the first, that Esther would be joined to Ahasuerus; the second, that Ahasuerus would be joined to Esther, which is the reverse of the first; and the third, when the two of them are joined to one another, this one to that one and that one to this one, in a single bond. And we have already explained this in several places. And corresponding to this, a woman is acquired in three ways: by money, by document, and by intercourse (Kiddushin 2a). For the man attaches himself to the woman, and the attachment is in these three aspects that we have mentioned: by money, since the woman receives the benefit of the money, she becomes attached to him. And the document (shtar), which is an expression of authority, as in (Deuteronomy 16:18), "Judges and officers shall you appoint for yourself," and it is written (Job 38:33), "Can you establish its dominion (mishtaro) in the earth?" — which is an expression of authority — like a man who attaches himself to a woman by ruling over her, and this is the man's attachment to the woman; and this is betrothal by document, an expression [related to] "officer" (shoter) and dominion. And by intercourse, which is the attachment of the man with the woman, and the woman becomes attached to her husband, for the intercourse is for both of them. This is why it is "in three ways" — for each is a way unto itself. And so too here: what he did in raising her neck is the attachment of Esther to Ahasuerus, in that she would raise her neck toward Ahasuerus. And the one who stretched the scepter to her is the attachment of Ahasuerus to Esther. And what he did in drawing over her a thread of kindness — through this was the attachment of this one to that one and that one to this one, for this is the matter of sight, which joins the two of them together; for the one who sees receives the one seen into his eyes, and this is the attachment of the one seen to the one seeing, and the fact that he looks at her is the attachment of the one seeing to the one seen. Therefore, when she obtained favor in his eyes, this was an attachment for both of them. And this matter needs no explanation, for it is very well known. And because of this there is here a complete attachment, since the attachment is by means of three, and of this it is said (Ecclesiastes 4:12), "and a threefold cord is not quickly broken." And up until now, even though Esther had an attachment to Ahasuerus, there was also a separation together with it, as happened here, in that he did not want to see her. This is why three angels presented themselves, to create a complete attachment that would not be severed. And one may also explain that these three angels are like the three angels who came to Abraham, and as we explained there the matter of these three angels — that they correspond to the three attributes by which Hashem, may He be blessed, conducts the world: justice, kindness, and mercy — as was explained there, and there is no need to elaborate here. And further, in the Gemara (Megillah 15b): "'And the king held out to Esther the scepter'" (Esther 5:2) — Rabbi Yirmiah bar Abba said: it was two cubits, and they extended it to twelve; and some say, to sixteen. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: twenty-four, and some say twenty-eight. And Rav Chisda said: sixty. And so too you find with the cubit-length of Pharaoh's daughter's arm. And so too you find with the teeth of the wicked, as it is written, "You have broken the teeth of the wicked" (Psalms 3:8), and Resh Lakish said: do not read "shibarta" [You broke] but "shirbavta" [You stretched out]. Rabbah bar Efron said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher: two hundred. And this is the correct reading — up to two hundred. And the explanation of this teaching is very deep, [namely] why each and every one gave a specific measure. This is because the one who said the scepter was two cubits [held this] because the scepter is meant specifically for extending to another place. And two is the beginning of extension, for one has no extension at all. And so it is fitting for the scepter, which serves to extend to another place, that it be two. And he said that they stretched it to twelve, meaning that the scepter was extending in the manner fitting for it, having [originally] two cubits; for when Esther stood in the court, she was terrified when she saw Ahasuerus, and Esther supposed that Ahasuerus was angry with her, and when he was holding out the scepter to her, she did not have the strength to go and touch the scepter; therefore the angel stretched the scepter to reach Esther. And because a surface has four sides, it therefore has extension in four directions. And each side has three [parts] — namely, the beginning of the line, the middle of the line, and its end — so that every line is measured by three. And the surface has four sides, and this is the extension of the surface. Therefore twelve is attributed to it, since it is extended completely. And this is why the angel stretched the scepter as befits something extended completely — for since a miracle occurred here that was not according to nature, the scepter was therefore stretched to establish this extension of the scepter in its perfection, and they stretched it to twelve, which is the complete extension for a surface, which has extension to all four sides. And the one who said sixteen cubits held that each single side is [itself measured by] four, since the side belongs to a surface, and just as the surface itself is characterized by four — in that it has four sides — so too each side of the surface fittingly [has] four, so that its number comes to sixteen. For the side has a measure of four, and the extension is in four sides; therefore they established it at sixteen, which is the complete extension in all four sides. And the one who said twenty-four held that the extension is in six directions. For up and down are also two directions, so that there are six directions [in all], counting up and down; therefore it is twenty-four. Or alternatively, he held that twelve pertains to the extension, as we said, only that here the beginning of the extension was two cubits, which is double one cubit; therefore the complete extension was twenty-four cubits, which is double twelve. And the one who said twenty-eight likewise held that twenty-four is needed, corresponding to the six directions that a body has — four for each direction, being the four sides plus up and down — and each of these is measured by four, as was explained. And a further four corresponding to the middle, which is within the six and is by itself, so that altogether it comes to twenty-eight. And this matter is known: that a body has the extension of the distant [dimensions], which are six, and the middle, which is within the six, so that every body has seven boundaries. Corresponding to this he said that when he stretched the scepter and stretched it completely, he stretched the scepter to twenty-eight, which is seven times four, corresponding to the seven boundaries that every body having extension possesses. And the one who said sixty cubits held that the extension is in all four directions plus up and down, which together are six. And each and every direction is reckoned to have the number ten, which is a comprehensive/general number and pertains to a surface, as was explained in [the work] Gevurot Hashem, chapter 12. And behold, the extension of the six directions is sixty. Therefore, when they stretched the scepter and brought it to a complete extension, they stretched it to sixty. And the one who said two hundred [held this] because the scepter itself was two [cubits], and each cubit of the two was stretched to a hundred, which is comparable to one, as is known. For the number ten is not fully comparable to one, but the number hundred is comparable to one, since with it one counts: one hundred, two hundred, three hundred. But with the number ten, the counting is twenty, thirty, and one does not count "two ten," "three ten," the way one counts "one hundred," "two hundred," "three hundred." Therefore two hundred is like two, only that the number two hundred is more complete. Therefore, when he stretched the scepter, he stretched it to two hundred. The general principle of the matter: a body that has a surface is bounded by its boundaries. And when a miracle occurred from the upper world, which is unbounded in its extension, the body became extended completely. And each of the Amoraim mentioned a particular aspect by which the body extends and the miracle occurred, until it was extended completely.

Up until half the empire. A thing that is in the middle and at the halfway mark of the empire; that is, the Beis Hamikdosh, which they started to build in the days of Koresh, and he reneged and commanded to discontinue the work. And Achashveirosh, who succeeded him, he too discontinued the work. The simple meaning of the verse is, “Even if you request half of the empire from me, I will give it to you.” — Notes: (3) See Maseches Megillah 15b.

"It shall be given to you" — your desire or your request.

Behold, there appears to be a redundancy in the verse: "What is troubling you" and "what is your petition" — and furthermore, afterward Scripture changes and says "what is your request" and "what is your petition," without saying "what is troubling you." And also, why this duplication of "request" and "petition"? And furthermore, when it says at the wine feast, "what is your request, and it shall be given to you," and "what is your petition" — why did it not say, without a break, "and what is your request and your petition," instead of interposing "and it shall be given to you" between the request and the petition? And furthermore, when it says, "And Queen Esther answered and said: my request and my petition" — for in these words there is neither sense nor grammatical structure; they are superfluous words. For if the intent were merely that she would state her request and her petition — namely, "if I have found favor, let the king and Haman come to the feast" — it should have said, "And Queen Esther answered and said: If I have found favor, etc., I will state my request and my petition." Rather, the meaning is this: it is not impossible that you have some great trouble and have come to be rescued from it, or that you seek some great benefit which I should grant you — for that is surely why you have set your face to come in a manner not in accordance with the law. Regarding the first possibility he said, "What is troubling you, Queen Esther," and regarding the second he said, "and what is your petition," etc. But at the wine feast he no longer said to her, "What is troubling you, Queen Esther" — for he reasoned: if she had some trouble, she would not have kept silent, delaying the matter from day to day and making a feast; rather, this can only be a request or a petition for some benefit that is in her heart. Therefore he said: if your request is a light one, corresponding to a "she'elah" (request) — "what is your request, and it shall be given to you"; and if it is a great one, corresponding to a "bakashah" (petition) and supplication — "what is your petition, even to half the kingdom." That is why he said "even to half the kingdom" only regarding the petition. And so Esther answered, "my request and my petition" — meaning: I have both categories within me, a light request and a heavy petition, and that is the meaning of "my request and my petition." And as for what I am now requesting — that the king and Haman come to the feast — that is not either one of these two; rather, it means: if I have found favor, etc., let the king and Haman come, etc., and then I will make both my requests. And so she explained them afterward, when she said, "let my life be given to me" — in her light request — and afterward, "and my people" — in her heavier petition beyond that. Now, regarding the feast — what need was there for it? Behold, in the Gemara many reasons are given, as we shall mention, God willing. But the one that is correct according to our approach, in light of all the preceding verses, is the view of Rabbi Nechemiah in the Gemara: that it was to instill faintheartedness in the heart of every man of Israel, so that they would not slacken their hands from prayer (lit. "from the Ark"). For this is why Mordechai refrained from speaking to her mouth to mouth — so that they would not trust in her, saying, "We have a sister in the king's house; she will save us from Haman's hand." Therefore she made herself appear as though she loved him, and made a feast for him, so that Israel would say, "There is a conspiracy between him and her" — all the more so since her royal position came to her because of him, for Vashti was put to death through him — and instead they would call upon Him who is above, and not make flesh their arm; and through their repentance Esther would act and succeed. And her own inner counsel (lit. "her kidneys") advised her to make two feasts, and it may be that she came to rectify the matter, as we shall explain, God willing. This is so when we consider the reason mentioned, namely, so that Israel would not say, "We have a sister in the king's house," as above. But the difficulty in this is that it is surely not possible for Israel not to know that she had commanded them to fast for her three days, and that she would then go in to the king in a manner not according to the law, risking herself for their sake — so how, then, could it occur to their minds that Esther loved Haman? Indeed, I say that she acted with wisdom so as not to reveal her request to the king until the second feast. For at the first feast, would they not have rejoiced to see this, saying, "Did she not command us to fast, and everything she does in making herself appear to love him is only for outward show, and now she will reveal his wickedness before the king"? But she revealed nothing then; on the contrary, she said, "Let the king and Haman come to the second feast." And Haman went out that day joyful and glad of heart, before the eyes of all Israel who saw his honor — so that Israel would say, "Behold, Esther has hidden this from our knowledge; she has conspired against us, and rejoices at our calamity, since it is through Haman that she attained to royalty, and she has, God forbid, gone along with the counsel of the king and Haman to sell her people for nothing. So then, upon whom do we have to lean, if not upon our Father in Heaven" — all the more so when they see him coming with her to the second feast like beloved companions. In such a way that throughout the whole of the third day, while they were in pain from fasting — that being the day of the first feast — and all through the night until morning, the time of eating at the second feast, a fire would burn within them, and their heart would cry out to Hashem with a voice of weeping and a voice of outcry, and they would cling to their King in Heaven with all their heart and all their soul — so that Hashem their God would show them favor and be gracious to them, so that at the time of the second feast, when she would speak to the king and reveal the wickedness of Haman the Agagite, it would be a time of favor, since Israel would then be brokenhearted, with a bitter voice and an embittered heart, and the words of her mouth would be accepted with favor. By this we find good sense and understanding for her statement, "and fast for me three days, night and day." For why did she command them to fast night and day, and what is the reason for fasting through the nights — something not done in such fasts for any other trouble in the world? It is because, as we wrote above, the fasts corresponded to what they had enjoyed at the feast. Now the feast lasted seven days, and she devised a plan to fast for fewer days corresponding to all those seven days. This is because there is no doubt that during the seven days of Ahasuerus's feast they slept at night, since it is impossible for a person to go seven days without sleep — for even one who swears not to sleep for three days, night and day, is flogged for violating his oath, since it is a vain oath, and he will fall asleep immediately, for it is like one who swears to ascend to the heavens and descend to the depths — and how much more so now, for three days. But there is no doubt that they had only this: the night for sleep, and the day for feasting. And Esther, following the rule of being brief, commanded them to fast three days and three nights, corresponding to what they had eaten during the six days of the feast's wicked deed, excluding their nights, since during the nights they did no wrong. And corresponding to the seventh day, she invited Haman on the third day, for the day following. This was so that on that night there would be darkness in the hearts of Israel, and they would eat ashes like bread after the three fasts; and their outcry, upon seeing that she had invited him again for the next day, they would say, "Is there not peace between him and her?" — and their hearts would be as bitter as wormwood to them, until the light of morning at the second feast, when, returning to Hashem with all their heart in the bitterness of their soul, the periods of the seven days of the feast would be found complete through the three fasts and the night following them. For thus the seven days without their nights correspond to three days and one night. And in the Gemara: our Rabbis taught: What did Esther see, that she invited Haman? Rabbi Elazar says: she set traps for him, as it is said, "Let their table before them become a snare" (Psalms 69:23). And Rabbi Yehoshua says: she learned it from her father's house, as it is said, "If your enemy is hungry, feed him bread," etc. (Proverbs 25:21). Rabbi Meir says: so that he would not take counsel and rebel. Rabbi Yehuda says: so that they would not recognize that she was Jewish. Rabbi Nechemiah says: so that Israel would not say, "We have a sister in the king's house," and turn their minds away from seeking mercy. Rabbi Yosei says: so that he would be available to her at all times. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: perhaps the Omnipresent will be stirred and perform a miracle for us. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah says: I will show him a pleasant face, so that both he and she would be killed. Rabban Gamliel says: the king was fickle. Rabban Gamliel said: we still need Modai, for it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer of Modiin says: his jealousy was against the king, his jealousy was against the officers. Rabbah says: "Before destruction [comes] pride" (Proverbs 16:18). Abaye and Rava both say: "In their heat I will set their feasts," etc. (Jeremiah 51:39). Thus far the words of the Gemara. And it is fitting to consider: what is the point of the trap she set for him? For had she not spoken her words of outcry to the king — which is why the king became angry at him — Haman would have suffered no harm at all from the feast. And furthermore, regarding the words of Rabbi Yehoshua, "she learned it from her father's house" — if this is according to Rashi's explanation, that she heard this verse in her father's house from the children who used to recite it, it is very difficult to say that so wise a woman as she, as is evident from her conduct, would have known this only through hearing it from children. And furthermore, if so, then Rabbi Elazar too, who said "she set traps for him," as it is said, "Let their table before them," etc. — why did he not say that she learned that verse too from her father's house? For from the place where she learned the Writings, she would also have learned the Prophets. And furthermore, were there no children elsewhere, outside her father's house, from whom she could have heard this, that the matter is specifically attributed to her father's house? And furthermore, was Haman hungry, that the verse "if your enemy is hungry" should be said of him? On the contrary, he had purchased Israel with his great wealth. And furthermore, according to Rabbi Meir, that it was so that he would not take counsel and rebel — this makes no sense, for what did he have, or what did he lack, in the king's house, that he would rebel against him, even had Esther not invited him? And furthermore, the matter would have been better rectified had she, without inviting him, summoned him before the king when she came before him, and said, "My request and my petition — let my life be given to me in my request," etc., "for we have been sold," etc., and the king would immediately have ordered him put to death — what need, then, was there for a feast, to prevent any rebellion? Now Rashi wrote as follows: "He would rebel against the king, since his hour was a fortunate one." Thus far Rashi's words. And this is difficult, for what did he lack, that he would rebel? For if it means that, were she to inform against him while Haman was still in his own house, he would rebel out of fear of the king — then she could simply summon him before the king, and he would not rebel; so what need was there for a feast? And furthermore, if so, even by making a feast for him, he would still succeed in rebelling. And furthermore, according to Rabbi Meir, who said it was so that they would not recognize that she was Jewish — who are these whom she wanted not to recognize her? For, in her own royal house, whom should she fear, and what could they do to her? And furthermore, is it not so that on the second day it became known to all that she was Jewish, and she was not afraid on that account? And if it be said that, through Haman's downfall, her heart was confident that others would fear and be corrected on account of him — then even now she could have ordered him put to death suddenly, without any invitation, and would not have feared the multitudes of the people. And furthermore, according to Rabbi Yosei, who said it was so that he would be available to her at all times — what benefit was there in his being available to her? For if it is, as Rashi explains, perhaps so as to cause him to stumble in some matter before the king — this is difficult, for indeed, without finding any stumbling block against him, she denounced him before the king; so how could she have intended to make him stumble? And it would have been far better, immediately, when the king said to her, "What is troubling you," etc., without any feast, to lodge her complaint against him and order him at once to be hanged upon a tree. And the most difficult of all is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, who says, "Perhaps the Omnipresent will be stirred and perform a miracle for us" — for when he says "perhaps He will be stirred," it would seem to his listeners that it is, God forbid, in doubt whether He will be stirred. And furthermore, how would He, through her feeding Haman, perform a miracle for us? Now Rashi wrote: "Perhaps He will take note that I must flatter this wicked man and demean my own honor." Thus far Rashi's words. But the difficulty of the doubtful expression still stands. And furthermore, who compelled her to flatter him? On the contrary — one who flatters the wicked will in the end fall into his hand, and there is a full verse to this effect: "And you have taught them against you, captains, to be the head" (Jeremiah 13:21). On the contrary, by the light of the king's face which shone upon her, saying "What is troubling you," etc., "even to half the kingdom" — she should have gone and requested Haman's downfall from him immediately, for he would not have withheld it from her. And also according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah, who said that she showed him a pleasant face so that both of them would be killed. And furthermore, according to Rabban Gamliel, who said "the king was fickle" — this makes no sense; and furthermore, he himself was not satisfied with his own reasoning, and said, "We still need Modai" — so if so, why did he state his own reasoning at all, instead of stating immediately the words of Rabbi Eliezer of Modiin? Now Rashi wrote as follows: "The king was fickle, and would go back on his word; she said to herself, perhaps I will be able to persuade him to kill Haman, but if he is not present, the opportunity will pass and the king will retract." But this appears to be an unacceptable matter. And furthermore, what is the point of saying "his jealousy was against the king," etc.? And furthermore, regarding the statement of Abaye and Rava, "In their heat I will set their feasts" — and Rashi explains: "In the midst of the feasts of the wicked, retribution came upon them" — is this not simply the same as the statement of Rabbi Elazar, that "she set traps for him"? In sum: most of the reasons stated appear to lack savor — but far be it, God forbid, from such great ones of the world to say anything unjust. And how much more so, since — behold what a great man testifies concerning them! — Elijah, may he be remembered for good, testifies that all their words are truth and justice, as we say in the Gemara, that Rabbah bar Avuha found Elijah and asked him which of these reasons was truly in Esther's heart when she invited Haman, and he said to him: "Like all the Tannaim, and like all the Amoraim" — meaning, all of them are true. However, it is possible to explain this passage briefly. The view of Rabbi Elazar, that she set traps for him, is this: through the feast, where he was joyful and glad of heart, He, may He be blessed, would say: "My children are afflicted with fasting, weeping, and mourning, for having eaten the bread of tears at the feast of Ahasuerus, while you, who fed them the bread of affliction, now eat delicacies and rejoice and are glad, while they weep in fasting and sackcloth" — so that through this, His wrath, may He be blessed, would nearly blaze up. Thus that feast turns out to be a trap and a snare for him to be caught in, without his knowing it — and this is the meaning of "she set traps for him." And this is what is meant by the verse, "Let their table before them become a snare" (Psalms 69:23) — for the table of those who oppress Israel will become a snare before them, since He, may He be blessed, will say: "My child is in trouble, oppressed by his enemy, while the enemy sits at ease at a table full of fatness." And Rabbi Yehoshua says that her sole intent was so that Hashem would see that a righteous person had humbled himself before a wicked one, feeding him and giving him drink — meaning, that He, may He be blessed, would become zealous, since holiness was being made to submit beneath impurity, and He would therefore overturn the situation. And from whom did she learn this? Therefore he says, "she learned it from her father's house" — that is, from Mordechai, for he had done just so, according to the words of the Targum, that Mordechai and Haman were two men, commanders of troops, and each went about with his own army; and when Haman's bread ran out and he was dying of hunger, Mordechai fed him bread — and this is the meaning of "she learned it from her father's house," as it is written, "If your enemy is hungry," etc. And this is to say that her father's house did not explain that verse only concerning the evil inclination, but also concerning the known enemy, Amalek — and by this, "you heap coals of fire upon his head" (Proverbs 25:22), arousing Hashem's zealousness, for the reason mentioned. And Rabbi Meir said it was so that he would not take counsel and rebel, and Rashi explained that his hour was a fortunate one. This statement can be completed by what we wrote above: that Esther acted with wisdom to purge the sin of Israel, in that the feast lasted seven days without counting the nights; therefore they were to fast three days together with their nights, and these would serve to purge what they had eaten during those six days — for thus, three days with their nights equal six days without nights. And as for the seventh day: she had appointed to make a feast on the day following the fourth day of the fasts, so that that entire night would be, for Israel, like a bitter day, as they would say, "Our sister, whom we thought would help us, has become our ruin" — for, on the contrary, it is she who has appointed a feast for him for the next day, and this can only mean that her heart has turned, and that with him she is sweetening a secret plot against us, to destroy us — in such a way that that night would seize them in darkness, to purge what they had eaten on the sixth day. And from then on, from early morning, it would be reckoned a curse for wicked Haman, for the days of our mourning had already been completed, and our sin had already been purged. By this we come to the matter, which is this: behold, Haman's is a fortunate hour, and how could He, may He be blessed, disrupt his fortune, unless it were after the purging of the stain of our guilt, which occurs on the fourth day — which would not have been the case earlier. Now, were Haman to become aware of Esther's mission to Mordechai and of what she had commanded him — "and fast for me," etc. — even without thinking that she was Jewish, if he were to sense that the queen was hostile to him, he would not take counsel and rebel, since his hour was fortunate, and there was as yet no merit for Israel until the completion of the three days and one night. Therefore she invited him, so that these days and that night would pass, with him in peace and joy with her, until the stain of Israel's guilt was completed, so that they would then have help from Shaddai against him, as above. And Rabbi Yehuda said it was so that they would not recognize that she was Jewish — and this is because perhaps he became aware, through the messengers she sent to Mordechai, and her handmaidens who knew everything and would fast together with her, that the matter had reached Haman's ears. And so he would come before the king to excuse himself, saying: "Indeed, I did not know that the queen is Jewish, for had I known, I would not have had the heart to purchase all the Jews altogether" — and the king would believe all his words, since he too did not know otherwise, for Esther had not told her people even to the king. And by this, when she came before the king to say, "For we have been sold, I and my people," he would nullify her words, and their plans would collapse. Therefore she invited him, so that Haman would not be believed if it should reach his ears that she was Jewish — in such a way that when she came before the king, before Haman could apply a remedy to the wound in advance, the king would become enraged at him upon hearing suddenly, "For we have been sold, I and my people," and would not accept his excuse, in his great anger, as indeed happened. And the view of Rabbi Yosei, that it was so that he would be available to her at all times, is this: she was concerned lest, since Haman had found favor to destroy them on the thirteenth of Adar, he might also reconsider and say to finish them off that very day, since they were his by purchase. Therefore, until the completion of the days needed to perfect their repentance, she arranged that he would be available to her, so that he would not busy himself doing something she did not know about; and also, by his being occupied with feasts, he would not turn his mind to altering what had already been done. And the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, who said, "Perhaps the Omnipresent will be stirred," etc., is based on the verse, "When your enemy falls, do not rejoice," etc., "lest Hashem see it and it displease Him, and He turn away His wrath from him" (Proverbs 24:17-18). Therefore she wanted to make Haman rejoice at a feast held close to his decree, the one by which he had purchased Israel, so that his rejoicing would be a cause for Him, may He be blessed, to turn His wrath away from us. But it was possible that He, may He be blessed, would not reckon this for him as rejoicing at his enemy's fall, since he did not do it of his own accord but rather through Esther, and also the feast was not made explicitly on account of Israel's downfall. Nevertheless, "perhaps the Omnipresent will be stirred" — meaning, perhaps it will appear to Him, may He be blessed, that this suffices, even though he did not do it of his own accord, and it was not, in essence, on account of the decree, since it could not be avoided that he would rejoice over it, being so closely connected to it. Therefore there is uncertainty as to whether He, may He be blessed, will be stirred by this and perform a miracle for us, turning His wrath away from us. And the view of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah is that it was so that the king would become jealous of her together with Haman and kill them both, and thus his decree, which he had made on Haman's behalf, would be annulled — for it would be far better that she alone should die than that all of Israel, she included, should be put to death by him. For the king would say that this is why he had purchased Israel — so that Esther might be taken through them, since she belongs to him by right of purchase — and therefore the king would annul the decree by putting both of them to death. But Rabban Gamliel said — not like the words of Rabbi Yosei, whose intent was that she too would be killed — rather, that he would be killed and she would live, saying: "The king was fickle." And if on one occasion he killed his own wife on account of his friend Memuchan — that is, Haman — now he would kill his friend on account of his wife. For he would say: "Behold, this man is a pursuer of women" — for it can only be that, since he could not persuade Vashti, he sought her death, out of his desire for her, and did so; and now he returns to this again. And she feared lest he do to her as he had done regarding Vashti. Therefore she invited him into his presence, so that she might understand the matter and have him killed, and the danger would pass from her — in such a way that it would turn around, and he would kill his friend on account of his wife. And after Rabban Gamliel stated this matter, he sensed the objection: who says that she acted so that the king would become jealous over her? Therefore he said: "Behold, to support our reasoning, I and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah still need Modai" — for it is stated that "his jealousy was against the king," etc. — meaning, that she acted so that the king and the officers would become jealous over her on account of Haman, and would kill him; except that, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, she too would be killed, while according to Rabban Gamliel, he would be killed and she would live. And the view of Rabbah is that she acted so that his rise would reach its completion, so that his wheel of fortune would turn against him — and this is the meaning of "Before destruction comes pride" (Proverbs 16:18). And according to the view of Abaye and Rava, it is so that his measure of guilt would be filled, and his evil would come upon him. This may be illustrated by a parable: a pot over a fire — with a small fire, its water begins to heat; and as one adds coals to the embers and wood to the fire, it continues to boil more and more, until the boiling rises higher and higher, and the water spills out. So too is this matter: with every sin that a person continues to add, his judgment continues to heat up, until the judgment reaches its boiling point. And what does He, may He be blessed, do to the wicked, such as Haman and Belshazzar, of whom that verse is said — "in their heat," meaning, when He heats up their judgment so as to fill the measure, so that it will boil over — "I will set their feasts" — that is, the feasts they hold in their rejoicing over their own wickedness, by which they oppress Israel, serve, within the cup of their sins, to bring their heat to a boil and fill their measure. So too Haman, close upon his evil decree which he had decreed against the Jews to destroy them, was reveling in feasting; and if the pot of his sins was already hot, through this feast it would boil over. And this is the meaning of "In their heat I will set their feasts" (Jeremiah 51:39).

The Questions: The doubling of 'what troubles you' and 'what is your request' — why did he say 'it shall be given to you,' whereas elsewhere, regarding a request, he said 'it shall be done'? 'What troubles you' — since he understood that certainly something great had moved her to come to the king, and definitely that this thing was either to remove some harm from her, or so that she attain some benefit — therefore he said, 'What troubles you, Queen Esther,' meaning, what harm has befallen you, on account of which you have come; or, 'what is your request' — to obtain some gain and benefit. Now at first he did not say 'it shall be done,' because he did not wish to grant her anything except if she were requesting something for her own need — therefore he said 'it shall be given to you' — but not if she were requesting that something be done for the sake of others in matters of the kingdom, which is included in the expression 'it shall be done.'

"And what is your request, etc." (verse 3) — As for its saying "even to half the kingdom": with regard to a request, it is impossible to request more than half, for if one requests more than half, this is not [really] a request. For it is only if she requests up to half the kingdom that the essential kingship still remains with the king as it was from the start, and the king has the power in his hand to give as he wishes. But more than half the kingdom — if he were to fulfill her request and give her more than half the kingdom, he would no longer be a king, since he would already have given the essential kingship to another, and if so he is not a king; and he has no power to give [even that much] except when he still remains king even after the gift. And the Gemara says (Megillah 15b): "'Even to half the kingdom' — something that constitutes a division within the kingdom, and what is that? The Beit HaMikdash [Holy Temple]." They too explain that the giving can only be of something that does not reach the essential kingship, and the Beit HaMikdash is the essential kingship; and were he to give the Beit HaMikdash, this would be the nullification of Ahashverosh's kingship. For the entire feast that Ahashverosh made, he made only because he had declared that Israel would never again be redeemed, for their kingship nullifies the kingship of Ahashverosh. Therefore it says here "even to half the kingdom," and not something that is the whole kingdom — namely the Beit HaMikdash — for if the Beit HaMikdash were built, then Israel would be in their own kingship, and the kingship of Israel nullifies the kingship of Ahashverosh, which is one of the four kingdoms that Hashem, may He be blessed, placed in His world. And as for its saying, "What ails you, Queen Esther, and what is your request" — the meaning is: if something is lacking to you. And in this sense it is fitting to say "What ails you," meaning, what is lacking to you? "And what is your request" — that which you are asking for, for a request comes about only because the thing is good for you.

Let his majesty and Haman attend. Our Rabbis listed many reasons for the matter. What did Esther see [i.e., what motivated her] to invite Haman? In order to make the king and the princes jealous of him, [or], so that the king should think that he desired her and kill him; and many other reasons. — Notes: (4) Ibid. (5) Another reason given is that she felt that the Jews would rely on her influence with the king rather than on G. She therefore created the impression that she abandoned them in favor of Haman, so that they would concentrate fully on prayer and penitence. (Megillah 15b) At the feast. Every feast is called מִשְׁתֶּה on account of the wine, which is the principal feature.

The Questions: Here she said, 'if it seem good to the king,' whereas further on (verse 8, and 7:3) she said, 'if I have found favor' — what was her intention in inviting Haman to the banquet? 'Let the king come' — the reasons that she invited Haman are numerous among the commentators, and the closest ones, in my view, are three. First, so that Ahasuerus would not think that it was out of some personal hatred she bore against him that she sought his life; therefore she showed that she held no enmity toward him at all, and that she was seeking only the rescue of her own life and that of her people. Second, so that she could present her case against him suddenly, so that he would have no time to prepare his counter-arguments, and so that, at the right moment, she could easily arouse the king's wrath against him at the wine feast, since at that time the king would by nature be quick to anger and to render sharp judgment. Third, because when the success of one's mazal rises to the very peak of its height, it then begins to descend, as is known; and after she saw that the wicked one's mazal was succeeding to the utmost degree, lacking nothing but royalty itself, she elevated him even in this respect as well, so that in his own eyes this would be the ultimate point of his success — as will be explained in verse 12 — so that from this point on, circumstances would necessarily begin to reverse, bringing him down to the depths of the pit. Now here she did not say 'if I have found favor,' because for a matter such as this — that he should come to her to drink — finding favor was not necessary, but only whether it was good in the king's eyes to eat and drink; and she said 'that I have prepared,' meaning that everything was already ready, so that he would hasten his coming and not put it off until the next day.

"If it please the king, etc." (verse 4) — According to the plain sense, it appears that this is why Esther invited Haman: when the king is at a feast, he is of good cheer, and grants requests and petitions to others. This is why Esther said, at the wine feast (below 7:3), "Let my life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request." Now had Haman himself not been there at the wine feast, nothing would be done to Haman at the feast, since Haman would not be present. And if the feast were to pass without him there, the king would not grant her petition regarding him. But when the king is of good cheer, he grants her petition and request at once. This is why Esther invited Haman — so it appears according to the plain sense. Furthermore, it may be explained this way: when Haman is with her, he would not be so bold as to stand before the queen and enter into dispute with her, saying that her people do not deserve to be spared. Rather, Haman would think it better to ask her to forgive him for what he has done, and he would seek to appease her — as indeed he did in fact (below 7:7). And this would be of benefit to her, at the very least to have the decree annulled. All the more so, when he was with the queen at the wine feast, in good cheer and in affection, he would not want to speak words against her. And by this, Esther would in any case bring about the annulment of the decree. So it appeared according to the plain sense. But in the Gemara they said (Megillah 15b): The Rabbis taught: What did Esther have in mind, that she invited Haman? Rabbi Elazar says: She set snares to trap him, as it is said (Psalms 69:23), "Let their table before them become a snare." Rabbi Yehoshua says: She learned it from her father's house, as it is said (Proverbs 25:21-22), "If your enemy is hungry, feed him bread, etc., and Hashem will repay you" — do not read "will repay you" [yeshalem lakh], but rather "he will be delivered to you" [yashlimenu lakh]. Rabbi Meir says: So that he would not take counsel and rebel. Rabbi Yehudah says: So that they would not recognize that she was a Jewess. Rabbi Nechemiah says: So that Israel would not say, "We have a sister in the king's house," and so divert their minds from seeking mercy. Rabbi Yosi says: So that he would be available to her at all times. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Perhaps the Omnipresent would take note and perform a miracle. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah says: I will show him a cheerful face, so that both he and she would be put to death. Rabban Gamliel said: Ahasuerus was a fickle king. And Rabban Gamliel also said: We still need [the reason of] HaModa'i, for it was taught, Rabbi Eliezer HaModa'i says: Envy of him was aroused in the king, envy of him was aroused in the officers. Rabbah said: "Pride goes before ruin" (Proverbs 16:18). Abaye and Rava both said: "In their heat I will make their feasts" (Jeremiah 51:39). Rabbah bar Avuha encountered Elijah, and said to him: According to whom did Esther see fit to act, and act she did? He said to him: According to all of the Tannaim and all of the Amoraim. Thus far [the passage]. And the explanation of the beraita: according to the one who says she set snares to trap him — the explanation is that when a person is in a state of goodness and joy, considering himself complete and lacking nothing, then he is prone to lack, and to fall, when something befalls him that becomes a snare to him. And this is what the verse means (Psalms 69:23), "Let their table before them become a snare" — that is, just as the snare in which a bird is caught works with ease, so too would their table become for them a snare, to be caught with ease. And the reason is this: a person of this kind, occupied with eating and drinking, has absence (he'eder) cling to him, and when some stumbling block comes upon him, he is prone to fall. But if he still lacks completion, he is prone to be completed. Once, however, he has already been completed, and is no longer prone to further completion, then absence clings to him. For with man in particular absence clings to him, since man is never completed in Torah and wisdom to the point that nothing more is lacking. But with eating and drinking, which is physical, this completion does apply to man — to the point that nothing more is lacking in eating, drinking, and physical desire. And once he has already reached this completion, absence clings to him. But if a person is in a state of lack, and has no joy, then it is fitting to say of him (Proverbs 14:23), "In all sorrow there is gain" — that is, when he is sorrowful, which is when he is in a state of lack, then he is prone to receive completion — and not completion alone, but he even has an advantage. And this is what the Sages revealed in what they said (Sanhedrin 91b): When is the evil inclination placed within a person? From the time he emerges into the air of the world, and not before he emerges into the air of the world. For the evil inclination is the absence that clings to created beings. And this is placed within a person once he has already been completed and has emerged into the air of the world — for then, being complete in his body, absence clings to him. But before he emerges into the air of the world, while he is not yet completed, absence does not cling to him, since he is still prone to be further completed. Only after he has been completed does absence cling to him — and this is a clear matter. And so they said in the Midrash: "And they sat down to eat bread, and behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming" (Genesis 37:25) — the tribes did no wrong except through eating and drinking. "And Israel dwelt in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry" (Numbers 25:1) — there was no calamity except through dwelling. And the general principle is this: through a person being in the completeness of his body, absence clings to him. But it is not so when a person sees himself as lacking, for anything lacking is prone to be completed, and since it is prone to be completed, it is distant from absence, which is the opposite of completion. And the one who said, "If your enemy is hungry, etc." (Proverbs 25:21-22) — this is great wisdom: since Haman would be receiving food from Esther — he receiving it from Esther, who gives to Haman — and the giver is superior to the one who receives, to the point that the receiver is considered beneath him, in his domain, by this she would be triumphing over Haman, rising above him. And this is what the verse means (Proverbs 25:21-22), "If your enemy is hungry, feed him bread [etc.], and Hashem will repay you" — "do not read 'will repay you,' but rather, 'he will be delivered to you.'" And this matter is as we said: since he receives from you, by this he is delivered completely into your hand, once he has begun to receive from you. And the one who said, "So that he would not take counsel and rebel" — the explanation is: had Haman not been with him, once it became known to Haman that Esther sought to have him killed, Haman would have gathered others to himself, and they would have rebelled against the king. Therefore she invited him, so that he would be with the king, and then Ahasuerus would be able to do with him as he wished. And the one who said, "So that they would not recognize that she was a Jewess" — this matter is fitting, as we explained above (2:10), that the reason Esther did not tell of her people (ibid.) was so that Haman would not lay a hand upon her, upon her people, and upon her kindred. And therefore she invited him to the feast, so that they would not recognize that she was a Jewess — as was explained above regarding this matter, that they were afraid she would exalt her nation, and exalt Mordechai, and bring low the other officials. From this she was afraid that they would think in this way, and therefore would wish to bring her down. And the one who said, "So that they would not divert themselves from mercy" — he holds that Esther knew with complete certainty that this trouble had no remedy except through prayer. For Esther knew what the verse says (Psalms 124:2), "Had it not been Hashem who was with us, when man rose up against us," and she knew how great was Haman's power — that there was no remedy for this trouble except through Hashem, the Blessed One, Himself, as we explained above. And therefore nothing avails for this but prayer, for prayer overpowers Haman's strength, and this is known through wisdom. And therefore Esther said that it was necessary that they not diminish their repentance, and not rely on man — for they would say that Esther would intercede with Ahasuerus, and so they would diminish their repentance and their prayers for mercy. And therefore Esther did this with wondrous wisdom. And the one who said, "So that he would be available to her at all times" — the explanation, as we said above, is that Haman would be with Ahasuerus, so that when Esther would make her request of the king concerning Haman, to have him killed, this would be done at once, since Haman was there. But had he not been there, it might perhaps have become known to Haman, and he would strive by some stratagem to save himself for a time, and within that time he would save himself entirely. And the one who said, "Perhaps the Omnipresent would take note and perform a miracle" (Megillah 15b) — the explanation is that Esther would be honoring Haman exceedingly, and such greatness is not fitting for a wicked man. And therefore Hashem, the Blessed One, would perform a miracle, to bring low and destroy the wicked man. And the one who said, "He was a fickle king" — the explanation is that had she not invited him, but only requested of him deliverance for her people, then even if he had promised her, he might perhaps go back on it, since he was a fickle king. And furthermore, surely, since he had given the ring to Haman (above 3:10), it was not possible to do otherwise once the ring had been given to Haman, unless he went back and took the ring from Haman. And this would require delay and waiting, and since he was a fickle king, he might go back on it. Therefore she invited him, so that Haman would be at the feast, and the king would act against him at once. And behold, these are the ten reasons stated by the Tannaim. And these are the two stated by the Amoraim: Rabbah said, (Proverbs 16:18) "Pride goes before ruin." The explanation is: when a person possesses greatness and pride to an excessive degree, this is a sign that ruin is coming. For excessive pride is something superfluous, added on, and anything superfluous is close to being taken away from him. And this is what they said in Tractate Sotah (5a): Anyone who has haughtiness of spirit will in the end be diminished. And therefore it is written, "Pride goes before ruin" — for all pride and loftiness beyond what is proper is close to being taken from a person, just as anything that is not fitting to exist, and that exceeds its proper measure, incurs loss. And the one who said, "In their heat I will make their feasts" (Jeremiah 51:39) — this matter was explained in the introduction, see there: when a person is drawn after physical desire and pleasure, this removes the higher power that a person possesses. And Haman certainly possessed great power, and through eating and drinking this power was removed from him, as he inclined toward drunkenness, as was explained above in the introduction. And for this reason Esther invited Haman to the feast — for this itself was a matter of importance and pride in Haman's eyes, and this very thing brought about his downfall. And because this matter appears exceedingly astonishing — that Esther came before Ahasuerus contrary to the law, and requested nothing but that he come with Haman to the feast, and for this she risked her life — there must have been many reasons for this, not a single reason, for a single reason would not have been sufficient, nor would it have been enough for her to risk her life over it. And therefore Elijah said that Esther had in mind all of the Tannaim and all of the Amoraim (Megillah 15b). This is to say that Esther did this through the holy spirit, and every reason that was correct to act upon came from Him, the Blessed One. And therefore all the reasons are true, for a matter said through the holy spirit comes from Hashem, the Blessed One, and certainly Esther had in mind every reason that was valid in itself. And it was on account of all the reasons together that she risked her life over this, not for the sake of one reason alone. "Let the king and Haman come today, etc." This is why it says "today" [ha-yom]: because the first letters [of the words yavo hamelekh ve-Haman ha-yom] spell the Ineffable Name, hinting that the Ineffable Name would also come. And the Ineffable Name would do battle against Haman, who is the seed of Amalek. And the Name is not complete until the memory of Amalek is blotted out. And because this was now the beginning of the redemption to bring him down, she therefore mentioned the Ineffable Name, so that it would bring Haman down. And according to the plain sense, she said, "let him come today," and not after the day had passed and it had become night — rather, let him come while it is still day. This was so as not to hold the two feasts — together with the feast that would also be on the next day — on a single day, for then it would appear as though it were all one feast. And she wished to hold two feasts on two separate days, as will be explained. And therefore she said, "today, to the feast," while it was still day, and then he would come "to the feast that I have prepared for him."

"Hurry Haman" (maharu et Haman) — behold, this is a transitive verb; and it may be that it functions like "maher himmalet shamah" ("hurry, escape there," Genesis 19:22), the meaning being "hurry yourself."

Behold, it is fitting to pay attention to what this was — that the king did not call Esther "Queen Esther" at the first banquet, whereas at the second banquet he said, "What is your request, Queen Esther?" But let us also pay attention to this regarding the wording of the verse, for at the first banquet it says, "Let the king and Haman come to the banquet that I have prepared for him," and it does not say "for them." But at the second it says, "that I will prepare for them" — and this is understood by paying attention to Esther's statement when she said, "I and my maidens will fast likewise" — so how could she then make a banquet on the third day, which was the fast day? Indeed, she was precise in her wording: "Let the king come, etc., to the banquet that I have prepared for him" — meaning, and not for me; therefore let the king come to eat with him, so that he not eat alone. Therefore, when the king heard this, he was grieved at heart, saying: "Did she make the banquet for Haman alone, and I am to come only to attend upon him, so that he not eat alone?" Therefore, it says, "Let Haman hasten to do as Esther has said," and it does not say "the bidding of Queen Esther." And likewise, when he spoke with her at the wine feast, he did not say "What is your request, Queen Esther," but only "What is your request, and it shall be given to you." Therefore, seeing this, regarding the second banquet she said, "Let the king come, etc., to the banquet that I will make for them," and not "for him," as at first — and also because, by the time of the second banquet, the fasts had already passed; therefore, for this reason as well, she said "for them," for one who makes a banquet for someone else — it is not proper conduct (derech eretz) that only the person for whom it is made should eat, [while the host does not]. Therefore, at the first, she said "that I have prepared for him," so that the one who would eat with him would be the king. But now that she herself was also eating, she said "that I will prepare for them," and she would eat with them — as stated, that for a banquet made for one person or for two, proper conduct is that the one who invites also eats with them, as is known. And this is why, at the second, it says "to drink with Queen Esther," and not at the first. Likewise, in Haman's statement, when he says, "Moreover, Esther brought no one, etc., and also tomorrow I am invited by her" — he does not say "invited by them," but only so regarding the second. But regarding the first, he says "she brought," because she did not eat except at the second; rather, at the first she brought him to eat with the king, as if the king were the host and he would eat with him, and she merely brought him along with the king. Thus, when the king saw that regarding the second she said, "to the banquet that I will prepare for them," he called her "Queen Esther" — which was not so at the first, where it touched upon his honor.

The Questions: What is [the meaning of] 'to do Esther's word'? 'That it may be done as Esther has said' — meaning, let it not be thought that Esther would be honored by Haman's coming; rather, Haman would come by virtue of Esther's command and her order, like a servant obligated to carry out his master's will.

"Then the king said: 'Cause Haman to make haste, to do the word of Esther'" (verse 5). — The reason it needed to say "to do the word of Esther" is to hint by this that he did this for Esther's sake, but Ahasuerus himself certainly did not want this and had no desire for it at all, for on the contrary, this matter was contrary to the king's honor, to give such honor as this to Haman. And nevertheless it says "Cause Haman to make haste to do Esther's word." And it says "make haste," because as long as Esther's word had not been done, he was in distress, for out of his love for Esther he wanted her will to be done at once. And it says this, that even if Haman had some matter delaying him from coming, he should come regardless. For Ahasuerus too was doing her will, even though Ahasuerus had no desire for this — only that Esther's will be done.

The questions: What did he intend by the duplication of "your petition" and "your request" — for regarding "your petition" he said "it shall be given you," and regarding "your request" he said "it shall be done"? And he is likewise precise (in verse 8), "to grant my petition and to perform my request," and so too in chapter 7 (verse 2). "Whatever your petition" — the commentators distinguished between she'elah (petition) and baqashah (request): whatever is asked for in and of itself is called a she'elah, while the ultimate purpose desired by the petitioner is called a baqashah — like the example of one who asks for a thousand gold pieces in order to buy with them an inheritance of field and vineyard: the thousand gold pieces would be the she'elah, and the field and vineyard would be the baqashah. And accordingly she answered that her she'elah and her baqashah are not two separate things but one thing — that the king and Haman should come to the banquet — for this is what she asks, and this is the ultimate purpose of what she seeks. But in my opinion, a small request which the petitioner obtains easily is called a she'elah, while the great matter that must be sought through supplications is called a baqashah, and I have already explained this elsewhere. According to this, whatever the queen asks for her own need is called a she'elah, since for this she does not need to plead and supplicate, for certainly he will not turn away her face; but what she requests for the sake of others is called a baqashah, since for this she must plead and supplicate. Now, since at first he said, "And whatever your request, even to the half of the kingdom, it shall be given you," calling even the matter that she would request for her own need by the name baqashah — because it would be a great thing reaching to half the kingdom — but now, since regarding what she would request for her own need she has already been assured by the king, and for this she does not need to plead, he called everything she would request for her own need by the name she'elah, while what she would request for the sake of others, as it says "and it shall be performed," he called by the name baqashah, since for this she has not yet been assured and needs to plead.

"And the king said to Esther at the banquet of wine, etc." (verse 6). Here it says "What is your petition," whereas above (verse 3) it does not say "What is your petition" — because now [Scripture] comes to add something, for if it were not so, what novelty would there be, since it already said there, "What is your request, even to half the kingdom, and it shall be given to you"? Rather, [the reason is that] since she had come to the king contrary to the law, in that case it is fitting to say "What is [the matter] with you" — that is, what do you lack, that you do all this to come before the king; perhaps you lack something, and that is why you came before the king contrary to the law. And in that case it is fitting to say "What is [the matter] with you," that is, what do you lack, that your desire is so great to come before the king contrary to the law. "And what is your request" — even though you do not lack anything, but you are requesting something that would be good for you. And due to the greatness of the matter — that a person wants something to be his, he requests and pursues it, and even if he endangers himself for it, when it is a great matter he is not concerned [about the danger] — that is why you came before the king contrary to the law. So is its meaning above. But here it says "What is your petition," for certainly she does not lack anything, since she did not now come before the king contrary to the law. Therefore it says "What is your petition," for it is the way of a person to petition for one thing. "And what is your request" — a matter of greater concern, such as when a person requests and desires [something]. One can also explain that "What is your petition" applies when a person says, 'Give me this thing,' and in that case "your petition" is fitting. But "your request" is said when one says, 'Do this thing for me,' and there is no giving here. And this matter is certainly greater, for an action is considered more [significant], whereas a petition, when one says only 'Give me this thing,' is not considered so [significant]; therefore it says "What is your request, and it shall be done." And regarding this Esther said (verse 8), "If it please the king to grant my petition and to perform my request" — thus she mentioned giving in connection with the petition, and doing in connection with the request. It would not have been necessary to write (verse 7), "And Esther answered and said, my petition and my request," since it is written afterward (verse 8), "If I have found favor in the eyes of the king, to grant my petition and to perform my request, etc." Rather, [the reason is that] had she not said (verse 7) "my petition and my request," it would have implied, from what she said afterward (verse 8), "If I have found favor in the eyes of the king, to grant my petition and to perform my request," that this too — that "the king and Haman should come to the banquet tomorrow" (ibid.) — was also part of her petition and her request, but that it was not this alone, but rather that this too was her petition and her request. Therefore she said [in advance] that all my petition that I am now requesting, and all my request that is now, is this, and nothing more at all — namely, this matter, "let the king and Haman come, etc." And if you do this, then my petition and request that I am now requesting has already been done. And all this is to say before him that this matter is considered great to her, so that the king should not say that this is not the main point, and thereby think that even if he does not grant this petition — that he come with Haman to the banquet — it is not considered as though he has not granted her petition, since this is not the main point. Therefore she said, all my petition and request now is this alone, "let the king and Haman come, etc.," and this is the petition and nothing more at all. And she said (verse 8), "and tomorrow I will do according to the king's word" — meaning, that regarding the matter the king said (verse 6), "What is your petition and what is your request," his intent was certainly [to ask] what I want the king to give me, and this matter I will do tomorrow — to explain what I want and am petitioning that he give me, and my desire. But now my petition is nothing more than this matter that I said, "let the king and Haman come, etc." Therefore, if he does this — my petition and request, etc. — he has already done for me all my petition and request that is now, [and] "tomorrow I will do according to the king's word," meaning, as the king understood, that I want and am requesting of him that he give me [something] — that matter I will do tomorrow, to state what I am requesting. Such is the explanation of this. And here it is written (verse 7), "And Esther answered, my petition and my request," whereas above (verse 4) it is not written "and she answered," but only "and Esther said." This is because here, [in response to] what Ahasuerus said (verse 6), "What is your petition, and it shall be given to you," Esther said, regarding this, that my petition and my request are not as you have said — for you think that my petition and my request are for something to be given to me — and regarding this Esther answered that my petition and my request are not so, but rather my petition and my request are, "If [I have found favor in the eyes of the king], etc." And because Esther came to say that the petition and the request are not as he had said to her, it is fitting to say "and she answered." And she said that tomorrow I will do according to the king's word, to state my petition and my request, whatever he will give me. One can also explain that this is why Esther said "my petition and my request," [which would otherwise be] superfluous, for it would have sufficed to say only (verse 8), "If it please the king, etc." — rather, she said it to indicate that "my petition and my request" are not as you think, that "my petition and my request" are that something be given to me; rather, my petition is [only], "If it please the king, etc." There is a question: why did Esther not request, at the first banquet, what she had to request, and why did she delay until the second banquet? Furthermore, [one might ask]: perhaps the king would not have said to her at the first banquet, "What is your petition, etc.," and she would need to say that he should come again to the banquet — but perhaps he would not have said so [on his own]. In any case, this is not so great a difficulty, for she had said [to herself in advance] that if he did not say to her at the banquet of wine, "What is your petition and what is your request," then she would request on her own, "Let the king and Haman come to the banquet that I will make for them again." But in any case, the first question remains in its place. One can explain — regarding all the explanations that gave a reason why Esther invited Haman — '[it is] better [with] the two' when Esther made two banquets 'than the one,' just as Haman said (verse 12), "and tomorrow too I am invited by her along with the king." If so, two banquets are more than one, and therefore she wanted to add another banquet. It is possible for me to say that "on the third day" (above, verse 1) it was not yet [a full] three days, and Esther wanted it to be after three days. And on the third day was this banquet, only that they moved the first banquet earlier, and the banquet began on the thirteenth day — the banquet began on the thirteenth day and [continued] into the night of the fourteenth — and the second banquet began on the fifteenth day and continued into the night of the sixteenth. And Esther did not want to make her request except after three days had passed, for the reason explained above, that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not leave the righteous in distress for more than three days. And just as this is so regarding distress, that it is three days, so it is regarding the days of feasting — for Esther was preparing to lay traps for him [Haman] in the banquet she made. And when there were two banquets, this came to three days — for the first banquet, the beginning of the banquet, was during the day, as we explained above regarding (verse 4), "let the king and Haman come today, etc." And the banquet that took place on the following day was also during the day and the night following it, so that the banquets [spanned] three days. And just as it was considered that the beginning of the fast, while it was still day, was counted as one day in itself, so too Haman, who was joyful (below, verse 9) — it is considered that the beginning of the banquet, while it was still day, was counted as one day — and thus the fasts of the Jews were entirely comparable to Haman's banquet. Therefore Esther did nothing at the first banquet. And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1056): "'And tomorrow I will do according to the king's word' (verse 8) — what did Esther see [as a reason] to say, 'and tomorrow I will do according to the king's word'? Rather, [it is] that the entire seed of Amalek is accustomed to fall on 'tomorrow,' as it is said (Exodus 17:9), 'Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill.'" Thus far [the Midrash]. And this Midrash comes to explain the question we asked, why Esther did not make her request of Ahasuerus at the first banquet. And the explanation of this is that Amalek and his seed are not like the other nations, for Amalek is separate (mechulak) from everything, and in particular he is separate from Israel, as you can see from the verses that testify to this. The general principle of the matter: Amalek is separate from existence [itself], to the point that he is reckoned as a thing unto himself. Therefore, as long as Amalek is in the world, it cannot be said that He, blessed be He, is One and His Name is One, until the seed of Amalek is destroyed, as it is written (Obadiah 1:21), "And saviors shall go up, etc." For this reason destruction is fitting for them in the future, when Hashem, blessed be He, will be One — since Amalek and his seed depart from the unity of Hashem, blessed be He, and this matter is the downfall of Amalek. Therefore it is written, in his downfall, the day "tomorrow," for he [Amalek] resembles the day "tomorrow" — for the first day is one day, and the day after it is the second, and this is duality (shenius). So too Amalek is the duality that exists in the world, and this duality is his downfall. Therefore Esther wanted specifically to bring him down on the day "tomorrow," for this is the downfall of Haman. And this is why Moses said (Exodus 17:9), "Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill." And Esther, too, said, "and tomorrow I will do according to the king's word," to petition concerning her people and her birthplace against the adversary and oppressor, that is, Haman, to bring him down specifically on "tomorrow," which is the second day. These matters are clear. And as for what she said, "and tomorrow I will do according to the king's word" — what is "the king's word"? This matter we explained above: that Ahasuerus said (verse 3), "What is your petition and what is your request, even to half the kingdom, and it shall be given to you," and Esther answered that she was not now requesting that something be given to her, but rather that he come with Haman to the banquet — "and tomorrow I will do according to the king's word," to state her petition, what she is requesting from the king. And because she was making her request concerning Haman, it is fitting to say here "tomorrow," as we have said. And above (verse 4) she said, "to the banquet that I have made for him," in the singular. But here she said, "to the banquet that I will make for them," in the plural. This is because above she had already made the banquet, therefore she said "that I have made for him," for at first I made the banquet for your sake [the king's], and now I am requesting (verse 4), "let the king and Haman come to the banquet that I have made," for the king's sake already — [as though] perhaps the king would not want Haman to be with him at the banquet. But here, where she said, "to the banquet that I will make," and she invited Haman before she made the banquet, then the banquet is also for Haman's sake, since she had already invited him; therefore she said, "that I will make for them." And furthermore, since Haman was standing there, it would not be fitting to say "to the banquet that I will make for him," as if she were doing nothing for Haman's sake; therefore she said "for them." And furthermore, Esther's whole intent was that she was laying traps for him — for Esther wanted to raise him up and make him great, so that this would become a stumbling block for him. And had she said in his presence, "to the banquet that I will make for him," Esther would not have been giving him greatness. Therefore she said, "that I will make for them," in order to give Haman greatness.

"My petition and my request" — Esther answered him with intelligence and knowledge. First she said that she has nothing at all to ask of the king, except that she find favor in his eyes so that he grant her petition; for finding favor and his generosity of spirit in fulfilling this petition of hers is more precious in her eyes than the petition itself that she would obtain. This is what she meant by saying "my petition and my request" — the essential thing is, "if I have found favor in the eyes of the king," to grant my petition.

And tomorrow I shall comply with his majesty’s command. That which you requested of me all these days, i.e., to reveal my nationality and lineage to you.

"And tomorrow I will do" — meaning, "I will state my request." And in my opinion, the reason Esther delayed speaking on the first day, at the wine feast, was that she had not yet seen any sign that Hashem had wrought on account of Israel's fasting; and when, on the second day, the matter of Mordecai's greatness was carried out, her heart was strengthened.

The questions: What is the meaning of the duplication "if I have found favor" and "if it please the king"? And why did she begin again with "my petition and my request"? What is meant by "I will do tomorrow as the king has said," about whose meaning the commentators are divided? "If I have found favor" — meaning, she stipulated hereby two conditions: (1) that she herself be favored by him, so that he grant her petition, from the standpoint of the petitioner; (2) that the thing requested itself be something good in the eyes of the king and not against his will — for she does not ask that he give her something that is against his will, since she nullifies her own will before his will. And then, "let the king and Haman come to the banquet that I shall prepare" tomorrow, "and tomorrow I will do as the king has said" — that is, state the request that I am making. In this too she showed wisdom in saying it — for she herself is not worthy to ask anything of the king, but since the king commanded her to ask something of him, she will indeed make her request in order to fulfill the king's word and his command, which desires that she ask.

"Nor moved" (ve-lo za) — and it is [taken as] lacking its first root letter, like "ve-hayom rad me'od" ("and the day is far spent," Judges 19:11), from the root of "yachgeru be-yeza" ("they shall gird themselves with sweat," Ezekiel 44:18); but what is correct in my view is that it is from the geminate verbs, like "be-yom she-yazu'u" ("on the day that they shall tremble"), in the sense of fear and motion.

Behold, the phrase "glad of heart" appears superfluous, coming after it already said "joyful." Rather, it indicates the blinding of the eyes of his heart, which Hashem had blinded. For behold, had this happened to someone else in such circumstances, even though he would leave the banquet joyful, he would not leave "glad of heart" — for his heart would trouble him, arguing within himself: "What is it about today, more than other days, that the queen invited me together with the king? Surely this is something [significant]." All the more so, since even in the king's own eyes the reason for the banquet was astonishing, and he said to her, "What is your request, etc." And who is so foolish as not to turn his mind and take to heart something of the events of those days and at that time, after letters had been sent to all the king's provinces to destroy, etc.? It would be quite natural to entertain the thought, "Perhaps she is Jewish, and this matter concerns her" — yet he did not set his mind to this, because the cause was from Hashem. And this is [the meaning of] "Then Haman went out that day joyful and glad of heart" — that his heart did not trouble him, as stated; and also, this is like the way of the wicked, who are ruled by their own heart, as is known from our Sages, of blessed memory. And this is [the meaning of] "and glad of heart" — that he was pleased without truly feeling, on account of the heart that deceives him, and it [his heart] was not alive enough for him to take it to heart. Now, when Haman "was filled with wrath against Mordecai," it appears that he was returning to his own vomit. For this was the very thing about which he had been angry from the start, and [yet] he had disdained laying a hand on Mordecai alone, and instead had brought about and carried out that great decree — so why does he now go back, after having accomplished what he had schemed regarding this matter? And why should he still be troubled? It is also fitting to note the wording of the verse, which says, "Haman was filled with wrath against Mordecai," whereas earlier it said, "Haman was filled with wrath," [without specifying "against Mordecai"]. And further, why does he now set his face to take revenge specifically against Mordecai alone, without concerning himself with his own honor — having [earlier] disdained laying a hand on Mordecai alone? But let us pay attention to the change in the wording of the verses. For earlier it is stated, "Mordecai would not bow, nor prostrate himself," and likewise, "And Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow, etc." But here it says, "he did not rise, nor move for him." Now, there is no doubt that the worship associated with one who is a deity is bowing and prostration; but toward one who is a man and not a god — even if he be a minister or a great man — people rise before him, but they do not bow down and fall prostrate. Now, at first, what Mordecai refrained from doing toward Haman was bowing and prostration, which are things reserved for a deity — all the more so according to our Sages, of blessed memory, who said that he had an idol in his bosom — or, according to the plain sense, that he would not perform, for an enemy of Hashem, an act of submission that is not done except for one who is a deity or a king. But when he passed before him while Mordecai was sitting, it is possible that he was not prevented from rising before him, just as a person rises before an officer or a ruler, out of respect for the honor of the kingship. Therefore, what angered Haman at first was only that he did not bow and did not prostrate himself, and that Mordecai had declared that he was a Jew, and that the law of his religion — the religion of Moses and Israel — was to put to death one who bows and prostrates himself before an idol. Therefore, "he disdained laying a hand," etc. And the reason is that they had told him about Mordecai's people, saying that because he was a Jew he was greater than Haman according to the decree of their religion; therefore he sought to destroy all the Jews, adherents of that religion. However, after Mordecai saw that Hashem was with him, and that the spirit of Hashem began to be with Esther, to find favor in the eyes of the king, and that she was laying snares for him [Haman], and also that he had received good tidings through Elijah and the schoolchildren, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said, as mentioned above — from then on, Mordecai was not only prevented from bowing and prostrating, but he also did not rise and did not move for him. This was not on account of the idol, but rather so as to be very lowly in his [Haman's] eyes on his own account. At that point [Haman] reasoned: this matter is not dependent on the religion of Moses and Israel, like bowing and prostration, on account of which I would rise up against all the Jews, adherents of that religion — for this is not dependent on religion, but rather on Mordecai's [personal] arrogance. Therefore, "Haman was filled with wrath against Mordecai" — against him in particular, and his mind was not at ease over what he had done and enacted against all the Jews, for this was a private matter that had newly arisen.

The questions: "That day" is superfluous. "He did not stand up nor move" is a duplication of the same matter. Here it says "wrath against Mordecai," whereas above (3:5) it says simply, "Haman was filled with wrath." "Then Haman went forth" — this recounts the baseness of this wicked man and the evil of his character: that until now, at every rank to which he rose, he never once rejoiced, for at every rank he attained he would seek what came after it, and the preceding rank was small in his eyes. Only on that day, when he reached the very pinnacle of greatness and honor, to be equal with the king, was the first day that he went out joyful and glad of heart. Yet even this did not last long, for as soon as he saw Mordecai, his thoughts were overturned into grief and sighing. "Nor move" — he saw that aside from the fact that Mordecai did not rise before him, Mordecai had no fear or dread at all, though he knew that it concerned his very life — for even if he was prevented by his religion from bowing to him, he ought nonetheless to have feared, knowing that he would surely be punished. Therefore now his wrath was filled against Mordecai himself — for at first the wrath encompassed the entire people of Mordecai and their religion, and regarding that, above, it wrote simply, "Haman was filled with wrath."

"Then Haman went forth that day joyful and glad of heart, etc." (verse 9). It writes "that day," though it did not need to write this. Rather, it is because it comes to say that (Proverbs 16:18) "pride goes before a fall." Therefore it says that "on that day" he went out in joy and gladness of heart, and this itself was the cause that afterward he had nothing but a fall, for "pride goes before a fall," for the reason explained above. "That he did not stand up, nor move." Its meaning: "did not stand up" — as is the custom, to stand up before an important person. "And did not move" — even though he did not want to stand up, since he too was an important person, nevertheless he ought to have moved somewhat; and this is a mark of respect when one does not wish to trouble himself so much as to stand up fully — the practice is to move a little, which does not require so much effort — but even this he did not do. But the Targum [Aramaic translation] renders (here): "he did not rise up before the andarta [effigy], and did not tremble on account of it" — end of quote. Thus it interprets "did not stand up" as referring to the image that was upon Haman, and "did not move" as referring to Haman himself. This is because there were two things about Haman on whose account one might bow to him: the first, on account of the image that was upon Haman; the second, on account of Haman himself. And corresponding to these two, [the Targum] likewise renders above (3:2), regarding "he would not bend the knee nor prostrate himself": "and Mordecai would not bow to the andarta, and would not bow to Haman." For Haman had upon his garments an andarta, which is an image, and [Mordecai] would not bow to it. And it is not [merely] that he would not bow to the andarta, since it is an image — for certainly that is deemed idolatry [in any case, self-evident]. But when there was no andarta upon him, it would seem that he should bow to him, for surely it is permitted to bow to a person, since he is a person like oneself; and since he is like oneself, how could there be divinity in him, seeing that he is a person like oneself? And regarding this it says "nor prostrate himself," [forbidding this] even to Haman alone — for it is not permitted to bow to a person like oneself except when he does not make himself into a deity; but Haman made himself into an idol (Megillah 10b), [so bowing to him is] certainly forbidden. And therefore it says in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 7:8): Mordecai said to them, Moshe Rabbeinu warned us in his Torah, "You shall not make for yourself a carved image or a molten image," and Isaiah said (Isaiah 2:22), "Cease from man, in whose nostrils is breath." He brought the proof first from Moshe's statement, "You shall not make for yourselves a carved image or a molten image" — only so that you should not say that perhaps it is specifically a carved image or a molten image [that is forbidden], but as for a person, who is a person like oneself, how could one make of him an idol? — he is a person like oneself, and one might have thought that in such a case there is no idolatry. And had it been written above (3:2) only "he shall not prostrate himself," we would have applied it to an image, and not to a person. But now that it is written there "he shall not bend the knee" — and this certainly refers to an image — if so, why do I need "he shall not prostrate himself"? Rather, it comes [to teach] about a person. And one cannot object that perhaps it is specifically prostration — which consists of spreading out the hands and feet — that is forbidden, while bending the knee is permitted. This is not so: first, since a person [made into an idol] is also idolatry, his law is like that of an image; just as prostration is forbidden with regard to an image, so too is bending the knee forbidden [with regard to him]. And furthermore, Scripture juxtaposed the two so as to forbid bending the knee with regard to him. And one cannot say that perhaps the verse means simply [what it says] — one clause for bending the knee [with regard to one object] and one for this prostration [with regard to another] — for if so, it should have written that even bending the knee is forbidden, and how much more so prostration. So too here: it should have written "did not move," and all the more so that he did not stand up — rather, one verse refers to the andarta, and one to Haman himself, (and so too here) for Haman had made himself into an idol. And for this reason it is written (above, 3:4) "be'omram" (בְּאָמְרָם, with a bet — "in their saying") to Mordecai day after day [the ketiv], but we read it "ke'omram" (כְּאָמְרָם, with a kaf — "as they said") to Mordecai day after day [the keri]. For even though they said [it] to Mordecai day after day, nevertheless Mordecai did not listen. This is like "and it was, as she spoke to Joseph day after day" (Genesis 39:10), which likewise means that although she spoke to Joseph day after day, nevertheless Joseph did not listen to her. But "be'omram [in their saying] to Mordecai day after day" means: since they said [it] to Mordecai day after day, therefore Mordecai did not listen to them. Because in that they said to him day after day that he should bend the knee and prostrate himself, this must certainly be because they had made him [Haman] into an idol — for if it were not so, what would it matter? Since both of them were with King Ahasuerus and were his servants, what difference would it make if one did not bend the knee or bow to the other? Rather, it was because they had made him into an idol, and about this they were very insistent — therefore they said it day after day. And as to why Mordecai did not remove himself from sitting in the king's gate, so as not to come into danger — some commentators explain that it was because he sat in the king's gate, having been placed there to guard and serve the king; and so, were he to remove himself from serving the king, he would also be endangering his own life. But this is not sufficient, for he could have removed himself from there when he saw Haman coming toward him from a distance, yet Mordecai did not do this — he could have said that he was going to attend to his own affairs, or whatever he required. Moreover, in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1054) [it says] that the king's servants said to Mordecai, "and shall it be told to him?" — meaning, they asked Mordecai whether they should tell Haman [that he refused to bow], and he said to them, "Tell him." Now why did Mordecai need to say that they should tell him this? Rather, the essential reason is as explained above: that he wished to sanctify His blessed Name, and it is certainly a commandment — Kiddush Hashem — in a case such as this. And therefore it says in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1054): "And all the king's servants, etc." (above, 3:2) — and why did they bow to him? Some say that [Haman] had placed his god within his garments, and [Mordecai] reasoned thus: if I bow to him, I will be found to be worshipping an idol. And therefore it is said (ibid.), "But Mordecai would not bend the knee nor prostrate himself." Another interpretation: Mordecai said, I cannot flatter the wicked one, for I am a sagan (a close attendant) of the King, as it is said (Deuteronomy 33:12), "And of Benjamin he said: The beloved of Hashem shall dwell in safety, and he dwells between His shoulders" — and it is not possible for me to bow to him, lest the Shechinah that rests upon my shoulders depart from me, as it is said, "and he dwells between His shoulders" — end of quote. Now, according to the first explanation as to why Mordecai did not bow to Haman — namely, that it was because Haman had made himself into an idol — it is still difficult [to explain] why Mordecai did not remove himself from the king's gate. To this it is answered: had I been afraid of this wicked man — seeing that the Shechinah rests upon his [ancestor's] portion, as it is written (Deuteronomy 33:12) "and he dwells between his shoulders" — this would then be a desecration of the [Divine] Name, in that he does not trust in Him, blessed be He, but is instead afraid of the wicked one. Therefore Mordecai, who was of the seed of Benjamin, of whom it is said "and he dwells between his shoulders," would sanctify His blessed Name, whom he serves, [trusting] that He would save him from this wicked Haman. And this is what they say in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1054): They said to him, "Behold, your forefathers bowed down to him with many bowings." He said to them, "Benjamin my [ancestral] father did not bow — he was [still] in his mother's womb" — end of quote. Now this is difficult: why did he not answer them that his forefathers did not make themselves into idols, as Haman had made himself into an idol? Rather, [Mordecai] came to tell them why he does not remove himself from the king's gate when he sees Haman coming toward him; and to this he answered that Benjamin had not yet been born, for the Shechinah rested in Benjamin's portion, and since the Shechinah rests in his portion, he [Mordecai, of Benjamin's seed] is therefore singled out for this — that he should sanctify the [Divine] Name insofar as possible. "And Haman was filled with wrath against Mordecai" — it did not need to write "against Mordecai, wrath," for certainly it was against Mordecai. Rather, [it is] because it might have seemed that Haman was not seeking to take revenge on Mordecai, but that only in his heart was there anger and wrath, without seeking to take revenge; therefore it is written "and Haman was filled with wrath against Mordecai" — meaning that he sought to take revenge on him. And it wrote this so that you should not say that Haman was not seeking to take revenge on Mordecai, but rather that it was Zeresh his wife and his friends who gave him this advice, as it says (below, verse 13), "yet all this avails me nothing, etc." But this is not so, for he himself was the primary agent of the deed — he was the one seeking to take revenge on Mordecai; it was only that they gave him the advice as to how to carry the revenge into action. For the whole course of events in the Megillah is that Haman's own scheme was overturned upon him; and had Haman not himself been seeking revenge, but rather the revenge had come about through his wife and friends, as the plain sense of the verse [might suggest], then his own scheme would not have been overturned upon him. Therefore it needed to say "and Haman was filled with wrath against Mordecai" — that his whole intent regarding Mordecai was to take revenge on Mordecai. And therefore it is written (verse 10), "and he came to his house, and sent for his friends, etc." — whereas it should have written simply "and he brought his friends." Rather, it comes to say that when he came to his house, the anger and wrath against Mordecai, to take revenge on him, was still with him, even though his friends and Zeresh his wife had not yet told him what to do to Mordecai to take revenge on him. And had it not written this, it would have seemed that he brought them only because of what he said to them (verse 13), "yet all this avails me nothing when I see Mordecai sitting at the king's gate" — and that this is the plain sense of the verse, that he sought only to remove Mordecai from the king's gate, so that he would not see him sitting there and have his joy and gladness of heart nullified; and had he not seen him sitting in the king's gate, even though [Mordecai] would do nothing to him, he would not have cared about it. But since it is written "and Haman was filled with wrath against Mordecai" — meaning that he had wrath against him and sought to take revenge on him — and it is written "and he came to his house, etc." — that is to say, as soon as he came to his house he brought his friends to give him advice on how to carry his scheme into action to take revenge on him — it was all from Haman [himself]. Furthermore, it appears that [the verse] comes to say that even though he saw Mordecai, and Haman was filled with wrath when he saw Mordecai sitting, the wrath was directed only at Mordecai; but the joy and gladness of heart he had on account of the greatness that was his — this was certainly still present with him. It was only that he was filled with wrath against Mordecai, but the joy was not removed from him. And do not say that when he saw Mordecai sitting, the joy and gladness of heart that he had departed from him — this is not so. And all this is because it was out of that very joy that it was overturned upon him for evil; and do not say that the joy had already departed from him — rather, he still had the joy, only that he was filled with wrath against Mordecai. And out of this he came to his house: "and he sent for and brought his friends, etc." — and it was all out of his joy and gladness of heart.

[Haman] restrained himself. He strengthened himself to control his anger because he was afraid to take revenge without [the king’s] permission. וַיִּתְאַפַּק is e se retint in O.F. [and he controlled himself].

"But Haman restrained himself" — that he did not reveal his secret to anyone until he came to his house; and it is from the root of "lehit'apek" ("to restrain oneself"), close in meaning to "to endure."

The questions: What is meant by "Haman refrained himself, and went home"? The implication is that it had been in his mind to go to some other place. "And he refrained himself" — it is evident that it arose in his heart to return to the king and inform against Mordecai in order to have him put to death, but then he restrained himself and did not return to the king; rather, "he went home," and he sent for his friends to take counsel about the matter.

"And the multitude of his sons" — the grammarians said that its meaning is "the greatness of his sons," like "kiryat melech rav" ("the city of a great king," Psalms 48:3), for how could he tell his wife that he has many sons [as though that alone were significant]? But in my opinion it is indeed literal: he recounted to his friends, together with his wife, his good fortune (mazal) — that he has great wealth and many children — yet none of this was worth anything in his eyes, even though the king had promoted him, and in his great greatness he had drunk with the queen and would drink again tomorrow. And the meaning of "sits in the king's gate" is that, since it is a position of great rank, he [Mordecai] provokes me.

"And Haman recounted to them," etc. — What moved him to recount his greatness at this particular time, and to say "and he said" in the middle of his words as though beginning a separate matter, is this: he was concerned lest they say to him, "Why is it that you hurried to seek redress for your insult, instead of waiting until the thirteenth of Adar, the appointed day you chose for dealing with all the Jews, letting Mordechai be like one of them?" Therefore he first recounted to them all the greatness that was his — for it was lofty and abundant, things that gladden the heart — and yet all of it was worth nothing to him, and was reckoned before him as naught and emptiness, every time that he saw Mordechai, etc. This is [the meaning of] "and he recounted, etc., and all of this is not [worth anything to me]," etc. — that is to say: it is not to avenge myself on Mordechai that I am acting, but rather to savor the taste and sweetness of all my greatness; for behold, all the good that is mine is lost to me every time that I see, etc., for I find all my rank and greatness nullified and turned into mourning — and who can muster the strength to bear such a thing, not to enjoy any of his own greatness? And the measure of the things he included in recounting his greatness, when he told of the abundance of his wealth, etc., is this: the things that gladden a man's heart are, first, wealth; second, children; third, greatness — namely, being exalted and lifted up, such that he need not envy any man of comparable standing. And a man who has these need not worry; and if worry should arise in him, it destroys much good, so that all these good things of his no longer give him any pleasure. This is [the meaning of] "and he recounted," etc. — saying: behold, all the things that gladden the hearts of men have not departed from me, so why should I let these bring me increasing worry? For behold, wealth is stored away with me, immense riches — this is [the meaning of] "the abundance of his riches." And the second [item] is also not lacking from me — this is [the meaning of] "and the multitude of his sons." And also I have no cause to envy anyone greater than me, for there is no one greater than me in the kingdom — this is [the meaning of] "and how the king had magnified him above all the officers," etc., as above — and this is [the meaning of] "and he set his throne above all the officers who were with him." If so, why should I suffer, when all of this is worth nothing to me — and why should this sorrow of mine only be nullified after eleven months, when the days of the evil decree are completed? Had this thing happened once or twice throughout the eleven months, I would have kept silent; but it happens every time that I see [him], etc. And lest they say to him: "But have you not already borne, ever since then, that he does not bow down or prostrate himself, and have you not been waiting for the day of vengeance — namely the thirteenth of the month of Adar — restraining yourself to keep silent until that day, for then you will do to him and to his people as you see fit?" — to this he said: "sitting at the king's gate" — meaning, this is my trouble: that Mordechai wounds me to my very heart, for I see him sitting at the king's gate. For at first, even though he would not bow down or prostrate himself, he would nevertheless rise up before me; but now he sits at the king's gate — he sits in his place and does not rise. Therefore I am not able to endure it. And since it could not be ruled out that people might think there was some acquaintance between Mordechai and Esther — even though he [Haman] did not know what he [Mordechai] was to her, and how much more so according to our Rabbis of blessed memory, who said that every day he would speak with her and inquire about her purity and about Esther's welfare, and what should be done regarding her — therefore there was room for people to say to him: "Perhaps he has some backing and influence from the queen, and that is why his heart was emboldened to demean you." It is not so, for behold, "Esther brought no one," etc., "but me" — meaning: even if she loves him, there is no comparison to her love for me; for behold, she brought to the feast none but me alone — meaning, that if Mordechai were as significant in her eyes as I am, he too would have been invited by her along with me; but she invited none but me. And therefore he did not say, "and the queen invited me to the feast that she made," but rather, "she brought no one," etc., "but me" — meaning, me and not him. And lest you say that perhaps her inside is not like her outside, and who knows whether she has set traps for me — that cannot be, for behold, tomorrow too I am invited by her, along with the king; and if there were evil in her heart, she would not have delayed it until tomorrow. And after this he revealed the full intensity of his worry, saying, "yet all this is worth nothing to me," etc. And since his statement, "yet she brought no one," etc., was said in order to preempt what might be said in response against the intent of his earlier statement, therefore it says "and Haman said" in the middle of the matter, to indicate that this is a statement almost independent in itself, and not the conclusion of what preceded, but rather like a response to a possible objection that would refute what preceded, correcting it. Or, one might say he said "she brought no one," etc., for the reason we have written: that at the first feast Esther did not eat, for she was fasting in her soul, and therefore there was room to say to him, "Behold, the queen is setting traps for you, for she invited you, yet she herself did not eat" — but rather this shows that she is a Jewess, and will not eat and drink of the fat of the king's sacrifices and the wine of his libations. To this he said, "yet she brought no one," etc. — meaning: even though there is room to raise doubts about this, still, from another angle there is proof, for behold, she brought no one but me — this shows that her heart is favorably disposed toward me. Also, [note that it says] "to the feast that she made" — meaning that she only had a role in the making of it, not in the eating; and if one should be concerned about this, that she did not eat — behold, tomorrow too I am truly invited by her, so that I will eat with her. This is [why] he said "she [invited] me," and did not say "she invited me along with the king" — and this accords with what we said above: that at the first feast she said, "to the feast that I have made for him," and at the second she said, "I will make for them" — for at the first she made it for Haman, and the king ate with him; but at the second, which she makes for both of them, she herself eats with them, for it is not proper decorum for the invited guests to eat by themselves, without the one who invited them eating together with them.

The questions: Why does he now recount the glory of his riches? "And recounted" — behold, the reason Haman had until now refrained from laying a hand on Mordecai alone was that he considered it a lack of honor for him to have a quarrel and a legal dispute against a lowly Jewish man in his eyes, over his not bowing down to him — for according to Haman's greatness, it was fitting that he not take any notice at all of the honor or disgrace of a man like this. Accordingly, Haman's greatness was itself the cause that made Mordecai's sin greater, in that he made light of his honor, and it was likewise the very cause why he could not lay a hand on him, since by doing so his own honor would be diminished. Therefore he first recounted his great greatness, for this is the foundation on account of which he needed to take counsel. And since a person's success in this world consists of three matters — abundance of possessions, of children, and of authority — he therefore boasted of these three things, for in all of them he had succeeded; and this is "the glory of his riches, and the multitude of his children, and how the king had promoted him."

"And Haman recounted to them the glory of his riches, etc." (verse 11). It is not written "and he recounted to them his riches," for what does riches have to do with what he says (verse 13), "and all this is worth nothing to me, etc."? Rather, it is because he was recounting the glory that he has from his riches — [and it is] this [glory] that is worth nothing to him when he sees Mordechai sitting, since Mordechai does not show him honor. Therefore it is written, "and he recounted to them the glory of his riches." And above it is written (1:4), "when he showed the riches of the glory of his kingdom," for in connection with showing, it is fitting to say that he showed them "the riches of the glory of his kingdom," but it is not fitting to say "when he showed the glory of his riches." And as for what he says, "and how the king had promoted him, and how he had advanced him above the princes" — had it been written only "how the king had promoted him," I would not know how much he had promoted him; therefore it is written, "and how he had advanced him above all the princes." And it is also not written "how he had advanced him above all the princes" alone, for that would imply that he was advanced above all the princes in order to lower all the princes — that he was advanced above them for this purpose, for sometimes one person is raised up in order to lower another. Therefore it is written "how he had promoted him," [to indicate] that [the king's] intention was [simply] to promote him. "The glory of his riches, etc." We have already explained the question: since Haman's whole intention was only that he wanted to know how to take revenge on Mordechai the Jew, what is the relevance of this here, and would it really be that because he sees Mordechai sitting at the king's gate, all this [wealth and honor] should be reckoned to him as nothing? And we explained that all these things are his glory, as he said, "the glory of his riches, and the multitude of his children, and how the king had promoted him." Thus he said that he has great glory, and all this glory is worth nothing to him when he sees Mordechai sitting at the king's gate and not bowing and not prostrating himself, and not showing him honor — this thing is the opposite of his glory, and it is a nullification of his glory. Therefore he said, "and all this is worth nothing to me, etc." And one may explain that this is what he said: the patriarchs of the world — namely Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — are more distinguished than every man, and Hashem, may He be blessed, blessed them with everything. And whatever it was that they were blessed with, Haman said that he too possesses. Therefore he mentioned these things, speaking in correspondence to the patriarchs. For just as Isaac had riches, as it is written (Genesis 26:12), "And Isaac sowed in that year, and Hashem blessed him," and our Sages of blessed memory explained (Genesis Rabbah 64:7) [that his blessing was so great] that they said the dung of Isaac's mules [was preferred] over the silver and gold of Abimelech — corresponding to this he said that the glory of his riches is very great. And since riches was reckoned by Haman as [mattering] more than everything else, he therefore opened with this. And afterward he said that he also has the glory of Jacob, and this is what he said, "and the multitude of his children." For Jacob was blessed with children, since he had twelve sons (Genesis 35:22), and [Haman] would say that he has an even greater multitude of children. And this is certainly the blessing of Jacob, which was unique to him among all the patriarchs, for indeed it was to him that a multitude of children was given. "And how the king had promoted him, and how he had advanced him" — he means to say that Abraham possessed greatness, for he is called, "I have made you a father of a multitude of nations" (Genesis 17:5), and as it is said, "You are a prince of God in our midst" (ibid. 23:6). And this matter is well known, for Abraham is called (Joshua 14:15) "the great man among the Anakim" (Exodus Rabbah 28:1). Therefore he said, "and how he had advanced him above the princes." And therefore he mentioned these three things — namely his riches, the multitude of his children, and his greatness — and these are of the three loftiest, all-encompassing virtues, and with these he prided himself.

The questions: Regarding what is said, "did let no man come in ... but myself" — was it necessary that she should have brought others as well? Surely the main point of the novelty is that she brought him; it should have said, "and Esther the queen also brought me to the banquet," in the affirmative, rather than in the negative. "Haman said" — he added, saying that he had reached the very furthest extreme of greatness. For a banquet that the queen would make ought to invite to it all the king's princes, for it was never heard of to make a banquet for one or two men, as it says, "the king made a great banquet for all his princes and servants." But I am so great in the eyes of the queen that I am equal in her eyes to all the king's princes together, and in that she invited me, it is considered as though it were a banquet including all the king's princes. Hence he said, "she did let no man come in but myself." And he added further, "and tomorrow also am I invited by her" — meaning, see my greatness: the queen has something to request from the king, and she fears that he will not fulfill her request, so she invited me as well, so that I would request on her behalf to fulfill her petition — which shows clearly that I am greater than the queen, and she needs me.

He said, "Also, Esther brought no one, etc." (verse 12) — meaning that he too has royal honor, in that Esther brought no one else to the banquet she made with the king, "but myself"; and this shows that royal honor is fitting for him. "Yet all this is worth nothing to me so long as I see Mordechai sitting at the king's gate" (verse 13) — for he would not kneel and would not bow down (above, 3:2), and this negates from him that which he possesses of divinity, which is over all things. This is what is said above (3:1), "and set his seat above all the princes," and it is stated in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1053) that he made for himself a platform higher than Ahasuerus's platform — and this made him into an idol, as was explained above. Therefore here it says (verse 11), "that he had advanced him above the princes," whereas above it is written (3:1), "above all the princes" — and in the word "all" is hinted that he made him into an idol, as will be explained further. But here, where it says "and how he had advanced him above the princes," it hints only that he is greater than they; for the fact that this is idolatry is hinted afterward in what he says (verses 9, 13), "yet all this is worth nothing to me so long as Mordechai sits at the king's gate, and does not rise and does not stir" — and by this [refusal], [Mordechai] takes from him that which he possesses, namely his divinity. Therefore, "yet all this is worth nothing to me" — for all the rest is not divinity, but that which is his divinity, and this [Mordechai] negates — this is reckoned by him as worth more than everything. This will be explained further from the words of the Sages regarding what he said, "yet all this is worth nothing to me" — understand this well. And in the Gemara (Megillah 15b): "And Haman recounted to them the glory of his riches, etc." (verse 11) — and how great was the multitude of his sons? Rav Chisda said: thirty — ten died, ten were hanged, and ten went begging from door to door. The Rabbis say: those who went begging from door to door were seventy, as it says (I Samuel 2:5), "sevei'im [the sated] have hired themselves out for bread" — do not read it "sevei'im" [the sated] but "shiv'im" [seventy]. And Rami bar Chama said: altogether they were two hundred and eight, as it says "ורוב בניו" [and the multitude of his sons]. The gematria of "ורוב" [verov] comes out thus: "ורוב" equals two hundred and fourteen. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: it is written "ורב" [without the vav]. And the explanation of this is: that what is said here, "ורוב בניו" [and the multitude of his sons] — that he had a multitude of sons — this multitude was thirty, for the number thirty is the complete multitude. For thus they said (Ketubot 75a): "yamim" [days] means two, "rabim" [many] means three — so then multiplicity begins at three. Only, this is not called "rov" [a full multitude], since every person also has three sons, and Haman, who prided himself on the multitude of his sons, could not [content himself with merely] three. Therefore it says they were thirty, for thirty is like three, since ten, in the reduced reckoning of numbers (mispar katan), is like one. And these thirty were divided into three parts: for just as at first he had the multitude, so afterward came to him the opposite, namely total loss (he'eder gamur). And this loss is divided into three parts: there is a loss that is natural, like death, which is within nature. And there is a loss that is entirely unnatural, like hanging, which comes about by the hand of man, and this loss is unnatural. And their going begging from door to door is neither [purely] natural nor unnatural: for they went begging from door to door because of the loss of their money, and this is not entirely natural, since the way of the world is that people have their livelihood; yet it is not entirely unnatural either, since something unnatural comes about by way of an innovation in action, whereas this loss came about merely through his not doing anything and not earning. Therefore this is not entirely unnatural, and also not [entirely] natural, but is rather like an intermediate between the two. And he means to say that every kind of loss held sway over Haman. And there is a further explanation: that when a person has sons, he has honor through them, as it is written (Proverbs 17:6), "The crown of old men is their children's children." And it is also reckoned that through him the world is settled, as it is written (Genesis 1:28), "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it." And further, his sons were reckoned as his wealth, and this was reckoned as his wealth even more than silver and gold. Corresponding to their being his honor, it befell him that ten of them were hanged, and there is no greater disgrace than this — (Deuteronomy 21:23), "for one who is hanged is a curse of God." And corresponding to their being his wealth, ten of them went begging from door to door because of poverty. And corresponding to his being called one through whom the world is settled, ten of them died and were lost from the world. But the Rabbis maintain that one cannot say that [only] ten went begging from door to door, because poverty is not equal in weight to death; rather, poverty is reckoned as a seventh of death. Therefore, since he had seventy sons going begging from door to door, and poverty is reckoned as a seventh of death, then the seventy sons who all went begging from door to door are reckoned as equivalent to the death of ten. And know further, that the name "Haman" [המן] indicates that everything Haman had, he had in abundance [hamon] — that is, he had an abundance of wealth, an abundance of greatness, and an abundance of sons. And sons are not called an "abundance" unless he had thirty sons, for there is no multiplicity in less than three, since three is called "many [rabim]" (Ketubot 75a); but nevertheless three is not reckoned an "abundance [hamon]" — therefore it had to be thirty, which is three times ten, and this is reckoned an abundance. And nevertheless, the starting-point of the number thirty is three, and this three is [itself] divided. Therefore these thirty, whose starting-point is three as we have said, were divided: ten hanged, ten died, ten went begging from door to door. And we have already said that these thirty were so [divided]: one third of them had a loss that was entirely unnatural; the second third is death, which is entirely natural; and the third third is partly natural and partly unnatural — namely, their going begging from door to door and having poverty upon them, which is the loss of livelihood. And the Rabbis say that those who went begging from door to door were seventy (Megillah 15b). For we have already said that he had an abundance of sons, as it is written (verse 11), "ורוב בניו" [and the multitude of his sons]. And the [true] multitude is seven — you find this: whenever Scripture comes to indicate a multitude, it says seven, as in (Deuteronomy 28:7), "They shall come out against you one way, and flee before you seven ways" — meaning, they shall flee by a multitude of ways. So too, seventy represents the [full] multitude, and we have explained in several places that this number comes to indicate abundance (Leviticus 26:28), "then I will chastise you seven times more for your sins." Nevertheless, since everything belonging to Haman was in abundance, this [i.e., seven alone] is not called an "abundance [hamon]". Therefore each of the seven stood for ten, and so they were seventy. And those who were hanged are not included in this number, because "רב בניו" [the multitude of his sons] is written defectively [without the vav], coming to teach that the multitude of his sons was lacking — that is, they were lacking bread. And those who went begging from door to door were [the true] abundance of sons, namely, seventy. And the one who said that his sons numbered according to the count of "רוב" [rov] held that the attribute of multiplicity applies to sons more than [to anything else], as we have said; therefore his sons numbered according to the count of "ורב" [ve-rav], and this is the number fitting for the multitude of sons, since concerning sons it is written (Genesis 1:28), "be fruitful and multiply [u-revu]." And when a person has sons numbering according to the count of "revu," this means that he has an abundance of sons. And all of this indicates that everything found with Haman was entirely abundance and multiplicity; and because he had such abundance, death and loss came upon him and upon his entire abundance/multitude — so may all the enemies of Hashem perish (based on Judges 5:31).

[This] is meaningless to me. I do not care for all the honor that I have. Whenever, etc. Our Rabbis said that he [Mordechai] would show him [Haman] a deed that he had sold himself [to Mordechai] as a slave because of lack of food when they were appointed—Mordechai and Haman as commanders of troops—in the same war. — Notes: (6) Maseches Megillah 15a-b.

"Yet all this avails me nothing" — that is to say, he could not weigh this greatness against the disgrace he suffers from Mordecai; for because of this very greatness of his, Mordecai's sin against him is very great, yet against this, precisely because of this same greatness, he cannot demean himself by laying a hand on him. Therefore he sought advice as to how to kill Mordecai without its being reckoned to him as disgrace and dishonor.

"Yet all this avails me nothing, etc." (verse 13). In the Gemara (Megillah 15a): Is it merely because he saw Mordecai sitting at the king's gate that he said, "Yet all this avails me nothing"? Indeed so — as Rav Chisda said: this one [Mordecai] comes from the prozbuli*, and that one [Haman] comes from the prozbuti. 'Buli' — these are the wealthy, as it is said (Leviticus 26:19), "And I will break the pride of your power," and Rav Yosef said: these are the buli [councilors] among the Jews. 'Buti' — these are the poor, and so it says (Deuteronomy 15:8), "You shall surely lend him [ha'avet ta'avitenu]." Rav Pappa said: and so they call him a slave who is sold for a morsel of bread. Thus far [the words of the Gemara]. It appears that it is not literally that these things were engraved on his heart, but rather that all his treasuries were always on his mind, and his heart was always upon his wealth, and his thought never departed from the treasuries of silver — this teaches you that he was always a lover of money. And so they said in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1054): When Ahasuerus saw that his [Haman's] eyes were covetous — as he had said above (3:9), "and I will weigh out ten thousand talents of silver into the hands* of those who do the work" — he [Ahasuerus] said (ibid. v. 11), "The silver is given to you." Therefore he said, "Yet all this avails me nothing" — meaning, all the treasuries upon which his heart was always fixed, and from which his mind never departed because they were so important in his eyes — nevertheless they are worth nothing to him once he sees Mordecai. And there was no need for him to write "sitting at the gate," for why make it depend on this? Rather, its meaning is that he said that because he [Mordecai] sits at the king's gate, this will be Haman's downfall, for he knew that Mordecai is the downfall* of Haman. And Rav Pappa said this because he is called 'a slave sold for a morsel of bread.' The meaning is that because he was sold for a loaf of bread — and bread is a person's very sustenance of life — it follows that the very substance of his life was sold to him. And this is not like an ordinary slave who is sold to someone because that person needs some item which could possibly be obtained otherwise; rather, this one was sold for the very thing that is his life, for which there is no substitute — and therefore this is considered a complete sale into slavery. And the reason he was sold to Mordecai for a morsel of bread was because Mordecai sat at the king's gate and had standing with the government, and Haman likewise had standing with the king. Now it is impossible for Mordecai and Haman, who are opposites, to stand together [in equal standing] — the greatness of one of them necessitates the lowliness of the other*. Therefore Mordecai's greatness before the king necessitated that Haman become a slave to him. And in the Midrash: In the second year of King Ahasuerus's reign, the city called Hodu (India) rebelled against him, and he gathered numerous troops to subdue it. He dispatched them against it in haste, and he appointed Mordecai over one division of them (— and gave them a gift —), and he appointed Haman over [another] division of them, and he gave them provisions and all their needs equally, to sustain them for three years. They went and besieged the city of Hodu — Mordecai and his division from [one] province, and Haman and his division from the west. Haman went and expended his money, as well as the provisions given to him to sustain [his troops], within a single year, while Mordecai was careful with his money and sustained [his troops] from the provisions the king had given him to provide for half the troops. Haman said: Woe is me now, for if the war is delayed like this we will have nothing left to eat. He went to Mordecai and said to him: All the provisions the king gave for the sustenance of the troops over whom I was appointed have already gone and been used up; we have nothing to eat, and we shall die of hunger. Mordecai said to him: It was not in equal division that the king gave to us — of all that he gave us, I still have in hand two portions of everything the king gave, while you squandered your portion. Haman said to him: If it please you, lend to me, and I will repay you double. Mordecai said to him: For two reasons I will not lend to you: first, if I give you food, from what will my own troops be sustained? And furthermore, I do not lend to you with interest, for I am of Jacob and you are of Esau, and Esau and Jacob were brothers, and the Merciful One said, 'To a foreigner you may lend at interest, but to your brother you may not lend at interest' — and this was said only as a pretext to extricate himself from Haman's grasp. When mealtime arrived, Haman's troops came and said to him: Give us [food] and let us eat! And he had nothing to give them, so they sought to kill him. He went back to Mordecai and said to him: Lend to them, and I will repay you tenfold. He said to him: I will not lend at all with interest; but if you wish to sell yourself to me, I will sustain my troops and yours. Haman said to him: Agreed. They sought paper on which to write the deed of sale, and could not find any, so Mordecai went and wrote the deed of sale, in his chamber, upon his own knees. And thus it was written and specified: 'I, Haman son of Hammedatha, of the seed of Agag, whom King Ahasuerus sent to war against the city of Hodu...' etc. The meaning of the Midrash's statement that he had no paper on which to write the deed, and so wrote the deed upon a plate of silver that was on his knees, is this: the fact that he had no paper came about specifically so that it would be written upon the very knees of Mordecai — that Haman was sold to him — so that Mordecai would tread with his knees upon the high places of Haman. And there is no nullification of this matter; rather, it endures forever. Therefore he had no paper, for paper is subject to nullification. Therefore it says that it was written upon a plate of silver, which is a thing that endures. And it is bound upon Mordecai himself, since this matter — that Haman is a slave to him — is obligated from Mordecai himself; therefore it was bound upon him completely, for the slave is beneath the feet of his master, and all this is obligated from Mordecai himself. Therefore it says that this deed was bound upon Mordecai himself. And this entire Midrash comes to explain that it is inherent in Mordecai himself that he is destined to tread with his feet upon Haman; therefore it says that this deed, by which Haman was sold to Mordecai, was written upon Mordecai's leg, upon which he treads, so that Haman is beneath his feet. And he says that Haman came to this state because his servants were gluttonous, and they consumed what was theirs until nothing remained for them. This was because Haman's servants were like Haman himself, who is a deficient person — so too his servants were deficient and were never satisfied, for Haman and his servants possessed the attribute of deficient matter (chomer). But Mordecai and his attendants possessed the attribute of complete form (tzurah), and so did his servants; therefore they had satiety and completeness, as it is written (Proverbs 13:25), "The righteous eats to the satisfaction of his soul, but the belly of the wicked shall want." That is to say, the righteous person, who has completeness, therefore eats to the satisfaction of his soul, meaning that he attains completeness, just as his soul is complete. But "the belly of the wicked shall want," for the belly is material, and the wicked person, who is himself deficient, therefore has the standing of matter, which is deficient and never satisfied. Therefore Haman was sold to Mordecai on account of bread. And it is known that matter, which is deficient, is particularly suited to servitude, as it is written (Genesis 22:5), "Stay here with the donkey [chamor]" — meaning, with a people that resembles a donkey (Yevamot 62a). And they revealed in the Midrash, regarding the matter of Mordecai and Haman, that Haman had the standing of matter, which is fitting to be a servant, and when one elevates this thing, it is complete idolatry. And Mordecai had the standing of form; therefore Mordecai is called "a man" [ish] (above 2:5), like Moses who is called "a man" [ish] (Exodus 32:1; Numbers 12:3), for it is known that form is called by this name. And when you examine this precisely, inner matters will be revealed to you, and there is no need to elaborate further on this.

"And she said to him, etc." — The reason the gallows was made fifty cubits high is not explained in the words of our Sages of blessed memory, except that this measure equaled the [combined] measure of Haman and his sons, one beneath the other, together with the appropriate spaces that should be left between one and another. Yet we still need to give a proper reason and understanding for Zeresh his wife and all his friends — what did they see in this, that they should instruct Haman, "Let a gallows be made fifty cubits high"? For certainly her intent was not [merely] about the measure of her husband and her sons, and that specific measurement was also not accidental. Furthermore, what did his friends and Zeresh his wife see, that they advised him to make the gallows in his own house and on its walls? Indeed, they saw two things. First, that Mordecai was great for the Jews, and his merit would stand for him, as happened to Daniel and his companion. Second, [they understood] that all their [Haman's] undertakings were governed by great astrology, as in the matter of casting the lot for months, weeks, and days — included in this was that Mordecai would rise over Haman's house, as indeed occurred, for "Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman" (Esther 8:2). Therefore, regarding the first [reason], he [Haman] schemed to combine fifty forces of impurity, which correspond to the fifty gates of holiness, to overpower Mordecai — perhaps they could prevail against him. Therefore they made the gallows through their sorceries, devising plans according to her [Zeresh's] intention, with Haman making it, to subdue him [Mordecai] beneath them; and had it not been for Hashem, he [Mordecai] would have been caught in their corrupt scheme. And included in this same matter, we found — indeed, we saw — good reason for Haman's going while it was still night to tell the king to hang Mordecai, rather than waiting until dawn broke — it was in order to strengthen himself with the forces of his impurity that he went at the time his [guardian] prince held sway, so that it would aid him against Mordecai, as our Sages of blessed memory said — for this is why the guardian prince of Esau said to Jacob, "Let me go, for dawn has broken" (Genesis 32:26), meaning: from now on your triumph will not come if you can prevail against me, for the time of my dominion has passed. And regarding the second [reason], they advised him to make the gallows in his own house, so as to diminish — by [making] the elevation of the gallows [take place] in his house — the greatness that was destined to come to him [Mordecai] in that very house; the opposite of one who dreams that he is being hanged, which is a sign of greatness. And when they said, "and in the morning speak to the king," etc., they gave the reason for it being early morning; and when they said, "and go in with the king to the banquet joyfully" — meaning: behold, even afterward you could still have it done, but it would be better for the matter to happen in the morning, so that when the time of the king's and queen's banquet arrived, you would not lose the pleasantness and joy of being invited there with the king out of worry over seeing Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king's gate, causing you to go there in sadness; rather, let him be hanged in the morning, and thereby "go in with the king to the banquet joyfully," and not in sorrow of spirit. And this teaches how hatred corrupts the [proper] order: for they told him, "let a gallows be made," etc. — meaning that it should be done through others — yet his soul craved [to do it himself], and he made it himself. And this is [the meaning of] "and the thing pleased Haman, and he made the gallows" — that he made it with his own hands. But it was from Hashem that the matter came about, that he should fall into the pit that he made (cf. Psalms 7:16, "and he falls into the pit that he made").

The questions: What was the wisdom in this counsel of making the gallows? Why should it be fifty cubits high? And why specifically should he come in the morning? "Let a gallows be made" — behold, they counseled him with wisdom, so that he could take revenge on Mordecai, and yet it would not be reckoned to him as a loss of honor. For if he were to hang Mordecai solely on account of his own sin — that he did not bow down to him — this would be a diminishment of his honor, that he had a quarrel with a Jewish man because that man had slighted his honor. But sometimes the king commands that one of those who rebelled against him be hanged, in order to cast fear upon the people, as if to say: whoever does such a thing, so shall his judgment be — to be hanged. And for this purpose they always choose the lowliest of the people, and hang him on a high gallows so that all the people will see him, so that they will see and fear. And if Mordecai were hanged in this manner, it would not be a loss of honor for him, in that he hanged a lowly and despised man; for he would not be hanged on account of his sin against Haman, that he did not bow to him, but only to be a banner to the peoples. And so they counseled him with cunning: first, that the gallows should be made fifty cubits high, since this is the sign that he was hanged, so that it would be a sign and a wonder, so that those who remained would hear and fear; second, that he be hanged early in the morning, for such was the practice of hanging those hanged for this purpose, so that as soon as the people went out from their homes they would see and no longer act presumptuously. Not so one hanged for his own sin, who would be hanged only after the time of judgment, which extended until noon, and would be hanged on a low gallows. And in this way, he would come to the feast rejoicing.

"And Zeresh his wife and all his friends said to him, etc." (verse 14). One may ask: what was this counsel that Zeresh his wife gave, [namely] "let a gallows be made"? This is something everyone knows [how to do], yet from the verse it appears that this was an especially great piece of counsel. Furthermore, they should only have needed to say "tell the king to put Mordecai to death"; [and once] they said "let a gallows be made," what difference does it make whether by this death or by another? Furthermore, it is difficult: why did she say specifically "let a gallows be made, fifty cubits high" — this particular number? One may explain that certainly Haman too knew that it was possible to put Mordecai to death; rather, because it was stated above (3:6), "he disdained to lay a hand on Mordecai alone," therefore this request of the king would itself be a disgrace to Haman — to lay a hand on Mordecai alone. And this was the counsel that Zeresh and his friends gave: "let a gallows be made, fifty cubits high, etc." And now, if people should ask why he was hanged specifically on a gallows fifty cubits high, the answer would be that this man deserved a gallows fifty cubits high, for his rank was that he was a commander of fifty, and according to his rank and importance so should his gallows be. This was to proclaim to the people how important this man was, and even so he was hanged — on the contrary, this would be to Haman's own credit, that he, who rules, is able to do such a thing as put a man of this stature to death. Thus one may explain that this was the wisdom and the counsel of Zeresh his wife and his friends. However, you should know regarding this matter that it is a deep one. For Haman thought that his own rank was so great that he made himself into a deity. And it is known that even about Moses our teacher, peace upon him, it is said (Rosh Hashanah 21b) that forty-nine gates of understanding were created in the world, and all of them were given over to Moses, as it is said (Psalms 8:6), "and You have made him a little less than God" — for the fiftieth gate was not given over to any person. For this world was created in seven days, and when you complete sevens, that is, to make one square of seven [7×7], that is forty-nine. And the gate of the fiftieth itself does not pertain to this world. And Haman, who made himself into a deity, claimed that there was something divine within him, and therefore he had a connection to the fiftieth gate. And this is why he said, "let a gallows be made, fifty [cubits] high" — to make known that the death of whoever acted against him would come from the fiftieth gate, which is where Haman reaches. And so his advisers told him that when the gallows would be fifty cubits high, then he would be able to prevail over him [Mordecai], for his own greatness came from the fiftieth gate, since there was divinity in him that belonged to the fifty. And because he made himself belong to the number fifty, whoever acted against him would meet his death from the fiftieth gate — and therefore they said, "let a gallows be made, fifty [cubits] high." And because he wanted to ascend to the fiftieth level, which does not pertain to man, this itself became his death; for that level is not reached by the name "man," and in that gate there is only absence with respect to man, for man has no existence there in the fiftieth gate. And so, when Haman raised himself up and made himself into a deity, claiming to have reached that place, this itself was his own absence and his death, and therefore he was hanged on a gallows fifty [cubits] high (below, 7:10). And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1053): "After these events the king promoted Haman" (above, 3:1) — Rabbi Akiva said: To what extent did he promote him? To a gallows of fifty cubits, as it is said (here), "let a gallows be made, fifty cubits high." "Above all" — [meaning] until you see him hanging upon fifty cubits: kaf is twenty, lamed is thirty — that makes fifty. And the explanation of this is that the king promoted him above all the officials, making him into a deity — and this is what is written, "above all the officials." And this itself was the cause of his death and his hanging on a gallows of fifty cubits. And this is the meaning of "to what extent did the king promote him — until [they said,] let a gallows be made, fifty cubits high": that is, Ahasuerus raised Haman up to the fiftieth gate when he made him into a deity, and no man reaches there in this world. And when he raised him up to that place, from there followed his liability for hanging and for absence — that he should cease to exist, since man has no existence with the fiftieth gate. This is the meaning of his being raised up until "let a gallows be made, fifty cubits high." Understand these words very well, for they are deep. And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1056): "a gallows fifty cubits high" — Haman went about seeking a beam of fifty cubits, and found none except a beam that was in his own house, because his son Parshandatha was governor in Karduniya. He took a plank from Noah's ark, whose length was fifty cubits, which the Holy One, blessed be He, had made into a remembrance in the world, so that the generations of the world should know that a flood had come upon the world, as it is written (Psalms 111:4), "He has made a remembrance for His wonders." And likewise, when Sodom was overturned, He left a remembrance in the world (Genesis 19:26), "and his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt" — to this day it stands, so that the generations should give praise to the Creator of the world. And Darius arose and cursed Haman, and his disgrace touched him, for so it says (Ezra 6:11), "and whoever alters this decree, a beam shall be torn from his house." Therefore it is said, "and in the morning speak to the king, that they may hang Mordecai," and afterward you shall go with the king to the feast, eat and drink and be merry, and see your enemy hanging opposite you, and your heart will rejoice. And why did he choose to hang him? Rather, he said: here is a time when the Holy One, blessed be He, is able to save from anything — Abraham from the fire, Isaac from the binding, Jacob from the angel, Moses from Pharaoh's sword, Israel from the sea, and so from everything; but from one who is hanged, He cannot save. [Thus far the Midrash.] The explanation of this Midrash comes to explain why it said specifically, "let a gallows be made, fifty cubits high." It therefore said that this beam remained from Noah's ark, for the flood came to sweep away the entire world, and Noah was saved by means of the ark, which was fifty cubits wide. For the world reaches up to forty-nine, as was explained above, and the entire world was swept away by the waters of the flood (Genesis 7:21–23), and the world received its salvation from the fiftieth gate, which is above the world. And therefore the ark, by means of which Noah's salvation came, was fifty cubits [wide]. And it said that Hashem, may He be blessed, made a remembrance for His wonders, etc. The explanation: when Hashem, may He be blessed, performs a miracle and a change in creation in the world, then even after the miracle has passed, in the end, since the miracle occurred in the world, it is impossible that no trace of it remain in the world — since it was from there that Noah's salvation came. He means to say that even though the governance of the world after the flood is not as it was during the flood, when Noah's salvation came from the fiftieth gate, nevertheless Hashem, may He be blessed, made a remembrance for His wonders, and there remains here something of that power still in the world. And therefore Haman — who is a single, particular individual — claimed that he received his power from it. And especially from Mount Ararat, where Noah's ark rested (Genesis 8:4), which was the site of his salvation — and Mount Ararat is Karduniya, as Onkelos translated there, "the mountains of Ararat," as "the mountains of Karduniya." And it said that he found a plank that was from Noah's ark — meaning, some [remnant] of the power that was in Noah's salvation. For a particular individual, like Haman, receives this power, and it is only a small amount. And Haman claimed that he was especially fit to receive this power, because Haman's son was governor in the mountains of Ararat, where the ark had rested, and so he was especially fit to receive this power. And it said that because of this there was in him a power of divinity, by which he would prevail over Mordecai. And likewise in Perek Chelek it is said there (Sanhedrin 96a) that Sennacherib found a plank from Noah's ark, and said, "this is the god that saved [Noah] from the flood." He said: if this man [i.e., Sennacherib himself] goes forth and succeeds, I will offer up his own two sons before you. [Thus far the citation.] This too — its explanation is that Sennacherib knew that he would succeed only if his success reached to a power that was entirely supernal, and that it would then be possible to nullify [the decree] in this matter, and without this he could not [succeed]. And because the flood and Noah's salvation came from the fiftieth gate, he therefore wished to worship that plank, for it represented Noah's salvation — meaning, that power by which Noah's salvation came about. And he said, "this is the great god who saved Noah." And the plank remained from the ark — meaning, that something remained in the world from Noah's salvation. And the proof of this is that after the flood He swore not to bring another flood again (Genesis 8:21–22), and this matter is not from the side of this world, since the flood itself came upon the world from the side of this world. Rather, this [oath] remained from the fiftieth gate, and if Noah's salvation came from there, all the more so that the flood will never again come upon the world. And therefore Haman said, when he saw the greatness of his success, that his power reached to the fiftieth gate, and because of this he made himself into a deity, and therefore they said, "let a gallows be made, fifty cubits high." And this is why it is written (above, 3:1), "and he advanced him above all the officials" — that he raised him up to the number "kol" [all], which is fifty, and by this he made him into a deity, as was explained above. And as for what it said (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1056), that Cyrus cursed Haman by saying (Ezra 6:11), "and whoever alters this decree, a beam shall be torn from his house" — this means that this power should be removed from him, [the power] which he wishes to use to do something with. And this is because he [who alters the decree] wishes to alter the decree and nullify the building of the Holy Temple; it therefore says, "a beam shall be torn from his house" — that this power should be removed from him, since he wishes [to use] this power to nullify the building of the Temple. Understand these matters very well, and one should not explain any further at all, for they are matters that are very deep. And it appears that this was hinted at in his name — the nun at the end of "Haman" [numerically fifty] — that he wished to reach the fiftieth gate, though he is [only] "man" (adam), since the numerical value of "adam" is forty-five. And Haman is called specifically "adam," as they expounded concerning him (Megillah 11a): "Had Hashem not been on our side when man rose up against us" (Psalms 124:2) — not "a king," [but] this is Haman (Rashi ad loc.). And it is fitting that he be called "man," because he wished to make himself into a god, yet he is [only] man — and he wished to reach the fiftieth gate. This is [the meaning of the name] "Haman," and therefore his death came upon him completely. And even Moses did not reach the fiftieth gate, as it is said (Psalms 8:6), "and You have made him a little less than God" (Rosh Hashanah 21b), and this suffices. And he asked why he chose to hang him, rather than [inflict on him] some other death. And regarding this it said that from hanging He would not be able to save him. He means to say by this that hanging is distinct from other deaths, for hanging touches, as it were, Hashem, may He be blessed, Himself and His honor, as it is said (Deuteronomy 21:23), "a hanged person is a curse of God." And we have explained this: since man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), man shares this with the One who created man in His image. And since he [who is hanged] thereby impairs His honor — for other forms of death do not touch the image of God, since they are not carried out in the open, as is the case with one who is hanged, for he is hanged specifically so that people should see him — Scripture therefore says that this is "a curse of God," since man shares with God in the image, for he possesses the image of God, and he [who hangs him] impairs the honor of that image as if impairing [God] Himself — as it is written, "a hanged person is a curse of God." This matter will be further explained shortly. And he gives a parable of one who wishes to destroy another, and a warrior comes to save him. He [the enemy] said: if I fight against the one I have come to destroy, the warrior will save him; [rather,] I will fight against the warrior himself, and then he will not be able to save the one I have come to destroy. So the sages said Haman reasoned: when he hangs him on the gallows, this act is "a curse of God," and by this he will have power over Mordecai, and his God will not be able to save him — since this hanging touches the honor of God, inasmuch as man was created in the image of God. And if He is touched in His own honor, how could He save Mordecai? And it was necessary that this be done in a completely open manner, for the more exposed it is, the more it is "a curse of God." And therefore he said, "let a gallows be made, fifty cubits high," for by this it is most exposed — so the sages reasoned. And one may also explain that this itself is what Haman meant in saying "let a gallows be made, fifty cubits high" — that by this he touches Him, may He be blessed, [directly]. And it is forbidden to speak of this any further. "And he made the gallows." At that moment the thornbush said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the universe, I have nothing on which to hang [anyone] — let me give of myself, so that this unclean one may be hanged, for I am called (Ezekiel 28:24) "a hurting thorn," and it is fitting that a thorn be hanged upon a thorn. And they found it and made it [into the gallows]. And once they brought it before him, he set it up at the entrance of his house, and measured himself against it to show his servants how Mordecai would be hanged upon it. A heavenly voice answered him: "This gallows suits you well — this gallows has been prepared for you since the six days of creation." The explanation: the thornbush is specifically fitting for this. And why is the thornbush specifically fitting for this? Because the thornbush is [called] "a stinging brier and a hurting thorn" (Ezekiel 28:24). And the truth of this matter has already been explained: that Haman is a thorn to Israel, their opposite in every respect, as is found in Scripture concerning Amalek, his seed, and his power — that he is a stinging brier to Israel, who are of the holy seed. There is no room to explain this further here, for it is known to those who understand. And as for what it said, that the gallows was prepared for him since the six days of creation — the reason for this is known: this is because hanging on a gallows is a disgrace to the image of man, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:23), "you shall not leave his body overnight on the gallows, for a hanged person is a curse of God," and they explained, may their memory be blessed (Sanhedrin 46b), with a parable of two twin brothers who lived in one city — one was appointed king, and the other was seized as a bandit and hanged. Everyone who saw him said, "the king has been hanged." [Thus far the parable.] Therefore Haman, who made himself into a deity, and because of this the image of man — which is the image of God — deserved to be hanged, since he made himself into an idol, which is a deity. And therefore hanging was fitting for him since the six days of creation, for there is a hint to Haman in the six days of creation: (Genesis 3:11) "Ha-min ha-etz" ["Have you eaten of the tree..." — the words, read as "Haman ha-etz," hint at Haman and "the tree"], as was explained above in the introduction. And therefore hanging was fitting for Haman since the six days of creation, since there is nothing that is as much a disgrace and a nullification of the image of God as hanging. For with other deaths the image is not exposed and disgraced, but with this one, he is hanged, and his image is hanged upon the gallows in the open. And therefore the Torah said (Deuteronomy 21:23), "you shall not leave his body overnight on the gallows," because it is a curse and a disgrace of God, as has been explained. And therefore, since the six days of creation, he [Haman] was destined to make himself into an idol, hanging was fitting for him. And likewise, all idolaters are executed by stoning (Sanhedrin 53a), and all who are stoned are [afterward] hanged (Sanhedrin 45b), because there is reason to disgrace the image of God when one worships a foreign deity; only that for Haman, hanging was even more fitting, since he made himself into an idol. And you should further know that hanging is the complete nullification of man, for it is a nullification even of the image of man, which is the image of God — the very highest rank. And because of this, Haman reasoned: since hanging is a nullification of the image of man, which is the complete nullification of man — unlike the fiery furnace, which, although it is a death that nullifies man, does not nullify the image — therefore that is not a complete nullification, and therefore He [God] was able to save from it. But the nullification of the image, which is a complete nullification even of the image, He cannot save from — so Haman reasoned. But the matter is reversed: for he himself deserved this since the six days of creation, as we have said. And above we explained this somewhat differently, and both explanations are correct, for it is a single matter. "And in the morning speak to the king, that they may hang [him], etc." As for its saying, "[and in the morning] speak to the king, that they may hang him" — this is because none of the events that took place in this Megillah had any [extended] duration of time. For as we also explained above, [as to] why this redemption is called "the hind of the dawn" (Psalms 22:1) — like the hind, which leaps swiftly from place to place, and like the dawn, which hastens to emerge from darkness into light — the redemption is therefore called "the hind of the dawn." And just as the redemption was so, so was the distress: for on the thirteenth the letters were written (above, 3:12), and the couriers went out in haste — both regarding the distress that would come upon the enemies of Israel (ibid., verse 15), and regarding the redemption, as it says (above, verse 5), "hasten Haman to do Esther's bidding," "hasten, take the garment and the horse" (below, 6:10). And it is further written (ibid., verse 14), "and they hastened to bring Haman," as was explained above in the introduction regarding this matter. And the reason is an exceptional one: this indicates a matter that is not under the duration of time at all, but rather comes from a level that is above time, and therefore proceeds with the greatest speed. And this counsel was the wisdom of the wise. And by this is also resolved what wise counsel it was that his friends gave him. For this counsel — that he should hasten in this — was unlike other matters that a person wishes to obtain from the king, where he waits until the proper hour arrives. But here they said, "let a gallows be made high, etc., and in the morning" — without any duration of time he should come to the king, and Mordecai should be hanged. And they said that "he should go with the king to the feast" — meaning, that he should remove it from his mind completely, as if it had never existed in the world. And this matter is especially fitting for this particular deed.