Esther · Chapter 6

The king’s sleep was disturbed. It was a miracle. And some [Rabbis] say that he took to heart that Esther had invited Haman; [thinking] perhaps she had set eyes upon him, and he [Haman] would assassinate him. — Notes: (1) Otherwise, would Achashveirosh’s sleep be disturbed, particularly on this night, after having partied earlier in the day. Achashveirosh’s sleep was disturbed by a dream in which he saw Haman grabbing a sword to kill him. (Esther Rabbah 10:1) (2) Maseches Megillah 15b. To bring the book of archives. It is the custom of kings that when their sleep is disturbed, parables and tales are recounted before them until their sleep is restored. Our Rabbis, however, explained that since he took to heart [the matter of] Haman and Esther, he said [to himself], “It is impossible that someone who is my friend should not know their plan and divulge it to me.” He [thought] again and said [to himself], “Perhaps someone did me a favor, and I did not repay him and they do not care about me anymore.” Therefore, “he ordered to bring the book of archives.” — Notes: (3) Ibid.

"On that night" — according to the Midrash, [this alludes to] "the sleep of the King of the world," meaning that Hashem does not sleep, but watches over Israel; and He brought about, as the cause, the remembrance of past deeds, because the king's sleep was disturbed. Some say that the reason the book of records of the chronicles was brought was so that he might be entertained by hearing of things past; and some say that [the reason] his sleep was disturbed was lest he be punished for a vow that he had made and not fulfilled — and this is closer to my view.

"On that night," etc. — Behold, those are correct and pleasing who say, in the name of our Rabbis of blessed memory, that on that night his thoughts arose upon his bed; he said in his heart: "Who knows whether Esther is concealing plans with Haman, and they are whispering about me, eating and drinking out of a hidden love, and digging a pit to trap me, while I know nothing of it?" And his sleep fled from his eyes. He said in his heart: "What is this, that no one reveals it to my ear?" And to this he answered in his heart: "Perhaps it is because I have not been repaying good for good — none of my servants is troubled on my account, and no one reveals it to my ear." Therefore he said to bring the book of records, the chronicles, to inquire and see whether anyone had done him good or revealed his secret, and he had not repaid him his reward — and therefore a man would refuse to reveal a secret. And the general sense of their words is that now he would pay a reward to whoever was found to have revealed his secret, so that the listener — whoever knew a hidden matter of Esther and Haman — would then leap like a deer to tell the matter. And in this way the verses that follow are drawn along, as we will explain with God's help. Now, to arrive at the explanation, let us pay attention to his change of phrasing: for above it says "the matter was investigated and found, and it was written in the book of the chronicles," and it does not say "in the book of records of the chronicles," as it says here. Furthermore, it says "and they were read" (va-yihyu nikra'im) with a patach under the vav, which indicates that they had already read through all the records — so how could it then say "and it was found written"? And furthermore, why was it that Esther's telling was not found written, as would have been fitting — for it would have been fitting to write that Esther told the king in Mordechai's name? And also, from the wording "and it was found written" it is indicated that this very wording is what is found written in the book, and it could not be that only the event exactly as it happened, in its order, would be written — how the two chamberlains were whispering, and there an Ish Yehudi (a Jewish man) discovered it and told Esther, and Esther told the king in Mordechai's name, and the matter was investigated, etc. — and not that terse abbreviation, "which Mordechai told," etc. Rather, it means to say: see now the greatness of His providence, blessed be He, for it is very great. For behold, that night was the very night that Israel lay in the sleeplessness of hunger from their fasts, which drives away sleep — the opposite of the king, who had just arisen from a wine feast, which induces the bonds of sleep — and nevertheless the king's sleep alone fled. And this is expressed with the term "fled" (nadedah) to say that this sleeplessness was not natural, but rather that it fled from him through His providence, blessed be He; and there was in his heart, like a burning fire, distress over the fact that no one had revealed the secret of Esther and Haman. And he said to bring [the book], etc., to inquire whether there were any who had done good for the king and had not been repaid their reward, as stated. Now, it is the way of great kings such as he to have a book of the chronicles written before him of everything that happens to him, day by day. And for a great king whose greatness and events are so numerous, the book of chronicles belonging to him grows so large that a man would grow weary and tired before finding even one of the particular items contained in it, among the very many things recorded there — and how much more so if the matter he sought was small and brief, liable to be lost among the great quantity, hidden from the eyes of the one reading in it. Therefore it is the way of the king to make a short book that serves as an index to the book of chronicles, and this is called "the book of records of the chronicles." And anyone seeking a small or great matter would read from the book of records, and would not fail to find what he wanted in an instant, and from it he would see where its place of honor is in the book of chronicles. Now, this matter is written in the book of chronicles, as mentioned above, at length — the event exactly as it happened — but in the book of records of the chronicles, so that a good remembrance of everything that occurred would come to hand quickly and easily, in terse terms, so that the reader might run through it. Therefore it says "to bring the book of records," so that he would easily find in it the good thing he sought. And I consider that since the book of chronicles itself is present before the king every day, so that everything that happens may be written in it day by day, as stated above, "and it was written in the book of chronicles before the king," which indicates that it was written there and kept there — therefore, so that we should not raise the objection and say, "why does it say 'to bring the book,' etc. — is not the book of chronicles already before the king?" — therefore it says that what is meant by "to bring" is the book of records of the chronicles, which is the book of the index; and this is [the meaning of] "the book of records of the chronicles." The reason is that this book of chronicles which I mentioned — even though they had already been read before the king — no matter was found written in it, for it had been skipped over by the reader amid its countless matters, since it is a great book; and how much more so, according to our Rabbis of blessed memory, that it was the king's own scribe who was omitting the matter, since they [Bigthan and Teresh] were kinsmen of Haman. Therefore it was necessary to bring the short book of records, for there it would not be omitted. And through this, "it was found written" what had been written in the long book of chronicles mentioned, which had been omitted there and not found. Furthermore, [Scripture] intends, by this same matter, to say that because he sought it in the book of records and not in the book of chronicles, it was not found written that "Esther said in Mordechai's name," as it was in the book of chronicles itself — the whole sequence of the event, how Mordechai told Esther and Esther told the king. But in the book of records, which was in terse brevity, only the beginning of the matter and the essential point alone were mentioned — that Mordechai told about Bigthana, etc. — and not what happened in between, that Mordechai told Esther and Esther told the king. And God brought this about so that the essential point would be that credit for the good deed be given to Mordechai now, so that Esther would not be mentioned before him — and how much more so, according to what was said above, that he had not given Mordechai credit at the time of the event, because Mordechai himself had not told the king, and had Esther kept silent, the king would have been endangered. Therefore it went forth from Hashem that it be stated simply, "which Mordechai told," [without further mention of Esther]. And furthermore, a second point: that from the wording of that book it would be understood that all of Mordechai's aid and all his desire was to save the king's very life from death — for so it appears from the continuation of the wording, "for he told," etc., and the reason for his telling was concerning the fact that they had sought to lay a hand on King Ahasuerus. And therefore he was aroused to say, "what has been done in honor," etc., as we will explain with God's help. And the fact that it calls it "the book of records" — the book of the index of the chronicles — is pointed to directly by the wording of the verse, "which he told," etc., for it is the nature of the language of an index to say "which Mordechai told," etc., meaning that it is found in such-and-such section and mark of the chronicles; and it is not like the language of the book of the actual event, but rather like a book of remembrance for what is set out at length elsewhere. Furthermore, [Scripture] intends, in saying "and it was found written," that we pay attention to the fact that it here says "Bigthana" with an alef. Now, I have heard it said that the scribe wrote it so — especially if Bigthan or Teresh were kinsmen of Haman — and that the intent was so that the reader would think the matter was in doubt, whether it was Mordechai who told about Bigthan, or whether it was Teresh who told the matter. Now, this is very difficult, for it was known that Teresh was one of the two conspirators — so how could he be the one telling? And also, how could it say "who had sought," in the plural, if the matter concerned Bigthan alone, and Teresh was the one who told about the plot against Ahasuerus? For it is indeed true that the king's scribes falsified the record in order to diminish Mordechai's merit. However, their intent was to indicate that Mordechai's good deed was not complete — that although both of them had sought to lay a hand on the king, Mordechai told only about one of them, either Bigthan or Teresh, while concerning the other, someone else told — in such a way that it would have been written "Bigthan or Teresh." But God acted according to all His wonders, and it was found written only as "Bigthana and Teresh," for the matter went forth from Hashem, to split apart the alef and the vav [of the word "or" (o)], and to turn the final nun (nun pashuta) into a bent, medial nun (nun kefufah). And this is what is meant by "and it was found written" — for it was a new finding, and not as it had been written and worded from the start, "Bigthan or Teresh," but rather "Bigthana and Teresh." Or, it may be said that this follows from the statement "and they were read before the king": it is the way of a king to command one of the king's scribes to read from the book in the king's presence, and he listens and trusts the scribe not to omit anything, since fear of the king is upon him — but he does not himself set his eye on the book to examine the writing, to see whether he omits something or fabricates something from his own mind. [Scripture] states that the king did not merely trust the scribe; rather, "they were read" by someone else, but before the king — meaning that the scribe read aloud with his own mouth while the king looked at the book that lay before him. And through this, "it was found written that which Mordechai had told" — for had it not been so, it would not have been found, since they were concealing the matter, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, that they were striving with all their might to hide it.

The questions: What was the cause of the sleeplessness? Why does it double the phrase, 'the book of records, the chronicles'? "On that night" — there is no doubt that the king, upon seeing all the dread with which Esther had dreaded to come to him, knew that she had a great request to make; for this reason he said, 'up to half the kingdom.' And since she doubled her words, 'if I have found favor' and 'if it be good to the king,' he understood that the request she would make was something good in the eyes of the king himself, and fitting for him from the standpoint of his own uprightness, inasmuch as he rules over peoples and his throne was established through kindness. Thereupon it arose in his heart that there was no doubt he was obligated to pay some reward to one who had done him good, and that he had not yet repaid this deed. Therefore he commanded that the book of records be brought. Now, the commentators have written that 'the chronicles' was the great chronicle in which everything was written at length, and there was also an index in which the headings of matters were written, by means of which they would search in the great chronicle. But it seems to me that there were two chronicles: one, the chronicle written as a memorial for later generations of the events of the king, his deeds and his acts, both good and bad — and this chronicle was not in the king's own hand but in the hand of the viceroy; the second, the chronicle written before the king, to serve as a memorial for the king himself — and this is called 'the book of records, the chronicles,' whose purpose was for the remembrance of matters. And I have already written that the king had forgotten who it was that had told of Bigthana and Teresh, and because of this he had aggrandized Haman, for he did not know to whom to pay reward for this great good, if not to the one who had brought it about that he married Esther, through whom he had been saved from death — and also that Haman had afterward contrived to make it appear to the king that he had been the one who told, and because of this he was aggrandized and exalted. And certainly, in the chronicle that was in Haman's hand, the name of Mordecai had been erased and Haman's name written in its place, asserting that Haman was the one who told; but in the book of records, which is the chronicle that was in the king's own hand, there the truth was written, that Mordecai was the one who told. And so it states —

"On that night the king's sleep fled, etc." (Esther 6:1). Explanation: because the king's sleep fled, he therefore commanded that the book of records be brought before him, so that he would fall asleep while they were being read. But this is difficult, for it would have made more sense for him to bring instruments of music and song before him, since it was that he could not sleep. Now in the Gemara (Megillah 15b): "On that night the king's sleep fled" — Rabbi Tanchum said: the sleep of the King of the world fled*. And the Rabbis said: the upper and lower worlds became sleepless. Rabbah said: the sleep of King Ahasuerus himself literally fled — the matter fell upon his mind. He said: what is this, that Esther invited* Haman together with me — perhaps they are taking counsel against that man [i.e., against me] to kill him. He then said: if that were so, would there not be someone who loves me and would inform me? He then said again: perhaps there is someone who did me a kindness and I did not repay him. Immediately, "he commanded to bring the book of records, and they were read" — this teaches that they were read of themselves. "And it was found written" (verse 2) — it ought to have said "ketav" [i.e., "a document"]. Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha said: this teaches that Shimshai would erase and Gabriel would write. Rabbi Assi said in the name of Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa: Rabbi Sheila, a man of Kefar Tamrata, expounded — if the writing* below, which serves the merit of Israel, is not erased, how much more so the writing above [will not be erased]. Thus far [the passage from the Gemara]. One should not raise a difficulty as to how Ahasuerus could say, "there is no man who loves me and informs me*" — for what sort of question is this, since surely they would not have revealed such a thing to him? This is not a difficulty, as we said above regarding Bigthan and Teresh: for it was possible for them to give him a deadly poison, because they were the ones appointed to guard him. But when he has no single person appointed as his particular guard, it is not possible for anyone to do anything to him unless they come against him with great force, and one person cannot come with great force against another unless there are many people with him. And in that case it is relevant to ask: is there not one of them who would have revealed this to me? Moreover, this is not a difficulty for another reason as well: for this was only how he was weighing the matter back and forth in his mind — that if it were being done by many people*, one of them would reveal it to me. And such is the nature of thought when a person weighs a matter back and forth: if it is so, then it stands to reason that it should be so. And because the deed of Haman touches upon Hashem, may He be blessed — for the wicked Haman wanted to destroy Israel, and Israel alone are called "children" of the Omnipresent (Deuteronomy 14:1), for they are the effect caused from Him, may He be blessed, essentially and primarily. And if there is no Israel, then there is no name of "Cause" upon Hashem, may He be blessed — for concerning whom would the name "Cause" be applied? As Joshua said (Joshua 7:9), "and they will cut off our name from the earth, and what will You do for Your great Name?" — and we have already explained this above. Therefore it is written, "on that night the king's sleep fled" — the King, King of kings of kings. And even though it is written (Psalms 121:4), "Behold, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps" — nevertheless He "sleeps" with respect to the transgressions that are in Israel's hand. Nonetheless, when this matter arrived — that Israel would be destroyed, God forbid — and this matter touches upon Hashem, may He be blessed, therefore the king's sleep fled; for the name "Cause" rests upon Hashem, may He be blessed, on account of Israel, who are the effect. And the Rabbis said, the upper and lower worlds became sleepless (Megillah 15b). The explanation of this is that the upper and lower worlds depend upon Israel — and this matter has also been explained above, in several places — as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, expounded (Genesis Rabbah 1:4) on "In the beginning God created" (Genesis 1:1): for the sake of Israel the world was created. And when Haman wanted to annihilate Israel, the upper and lower worlds became sleepless. And it appears why they expounded in this way: because it was difficult for them that, since the verse is speaking of sleep, which pertains to man as man and not by virtue of his being king, it should therefore have written "the sleep of King Ahasuerus fled," and not "the sleep of the king" without further qualification. Now we said above, from the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 3:10), that everywhere it says "the king," its meaning refers to both the King of kings and King Ahasuerus. Therefore they expounded that the verse comes to say that the sleep of the King, King of kings of kings, fled — or that the sleep of the upper and lower worlds fled — and therefore it wrote "the king" without further qualification, for this sleep was not the sleep of flesh and blood. And according to the one who says that the sleep of Ahasuerus fled (Megillah 15b) — as to why it is not written "the sleep of King Ahasuerus fled": because he was pondering a matter that it is fitting for a king to ponder. When he saw the feast of Haman, he thought that Esther and Haman were conspiring against Ahasuerus to kill him, for Haman wants to reign, and a king must be wary lest people conspire against him for evil. Therefore it says, "the king's sleep fled, etc." — meaning, it is by virtue of his being king that there is cause to be concerned about this matter. And as for what it says, "the book of records, the book of the chronicles" — this is because there are two [kinds of] books of chronicles. For there is a book of chronicles in which is written what has happened, and there is no need for them to be remembered [in order to act upon them], but rather they were written only so that what happened would be known. And there is a book of chronicles that is written so that it will be remembered — as is the case here, which was written so that what Mordechai did for the king would be remembered. Therefore it wrote "a book of records and chronicles." And it did not write "book of records" alone, which would imply something written so that it would be remembered in order to be acted upon, and not that it was [merely] a chronicle (-alone; but what it says, "book of records of the chronicles," implies that it will be remembered so that some deed will be done-); this is called a "book of records." And therefore it wrote "book of records, chronicles," whose meaning is: chronicles of things that had occurred, which would become a remembrance so that some deed would be done. And as for what it says, "and they were read before him," our Rabbis, of blessed memory, explained (Megillah 15b) that they were read of themselves. The meaning of this is that they came out of the reader's mouth with great ease, as if they were being read of themselves — for this was from Hashem, may He be blessed, and it came about through a miracle. And now it is not difficult why he did not bring musical instruments before him, for this too was from Hashem, may He be blessed, just like the essential reading itself, which was read of itself. In any case, one may explain that this was from Hashem, may He be blessed, in that it was not Ahasuerus's intention in bringing the book of records for them to be read that this reading would bring him sleep; rather, since he was not occupying himself with other matters, he therefore said to bring the book of records. And it says that Shimshai would erase and Gabriel would write (Megillah 16a). The explanation of this is that Shimshai was acting to cause the writing to be erased until it would no longer be found, but Gabriel, who is appointed over the writing, was acting to guard it from erasure. This is the meaning of saying that Shimshai was erasing and Gabriel was writing. And he derives this precisely from the fact that it should not have been necessary to write (verse 2), "[and it was found] written" ["katuv"] in the passive form — for this term comes to indicate the receiving of an action from the writer, and behold it is written "and it was found," implying that it was found before him, yet this matter was not [merely] found before him in the sense of receiving an action passively. But surely one could explain that the term "katuv" indicates that it was written by a writer; nonetheless, it would have been more fitting to write "and it was found writing ["ketav"]," for this fits better together with "and it was found." Moreover, it should only have needed to write, "and it was found that which Mordechai had told, etc." Rather, it wrote it this way because it was written despite Shimshai's will, and it is in this sense that "written" ["katuv"] applies. And therefore it says, "and Gabriel would write," for Gabriel is appointed over this — since Shimshai erases, and Gabriel would overpower this and write; therefore it is written "katuv." And it says (Megillah 16a), "If the writing below is not erased in the case of Israel, the writing above [will not be erased] all the more so." And the explanation of this is: Israel’s deeds have real existence and are made manifest—so that even the writing below, which belongs to the physical world (and though the way of such [ordinary] writing is to be erased and nullified, since it records material deeds), as, for example, what Mordechai did for Ahasuerus in telling about Bigthan and Teresh, is nonetheless not erased. How much more so the writing above—meaning a Divine matter, which has a Divine imprint on high, such as a mitzvah that one performs—this is certainly not erased. And the reason that the writing below is not erased [in Israel’s case] is that Israel themselves are the very essence of existence; therefore all their deeds likewise possess existence, and are not erased and do not become void. For Israel themselves are set apart from the physical—rather, they are non-physical—and therefore their deeds are removed from the physical materiality that is subject to decay; and this matter is clear.

The questions: From the wording 'and it was found written' it is implied that it was a novelty that it was found written and had not been erased. "And it was found written" — for there Mordecai's name had not been erased; rather, it was found written that it was not Haman who had told, but that it was Mordecai who had told. And from this the king came to know that everything by which he had aggrandized Haman, thinking that he had been the cause of his rescue, had been a mistake, and that the essence of this greatness belonged to Mordecai. And in this Scripture recounts the providence of Hashem: how, at that very moment when Haman was scheming to seek the life of the righteous man in order to hang him, the matter was overturned, so that the king came to know that the greatness attributed to Haman actually belonged to Mordecai.

As for what is written here (verse 2), "Bigthana," whereas above it is written (2:21) "Bigthan" — this is because above, since Scripture is recounting the actual event, it hints that his name was lacking the aleph, that is, the study of wisdom, as it is written (Job 33:33), "va'alefkha [and I will teach you] wisdom." For this was folly: two men were doing this deed and needed to speak together, and it is said (Vayikra Rabbah 32:2) that walls have ears, and words are overheard — therefore he was lacking the study of wisdom (the aleph). And further it is written (Ecclesiastes 10:20), "Also in your thought do not curse the king, [...] for a bird of the sky will carry the voice" — therefore he was lacking the study of wisdom. One may also explain that because of this evil deed, since they sought to lay a hand on the king, a letter was missing from his name on account of the evil deed. And so, in connection with the account of the deed itself, where it recounts what they did, a letter is missing from his name. But here, where it mentions only what was written in the Book of the Chronicles — there it is written "Bigthana" — for otherwise we would not know who he was, since perhaps "Bigthan" was his name; therefore it was necessary to mention him by his name, "Bigthana."

"Honor" (yekar) — it is a noun, and it is always [vocalized] with a kamatz, except when it is in construct, as in "ve-et yekar tiferet gedulato" ("the honor of the excellence of his greatness," Esther 1:4). But if it were an adjective, the yod would be [vocalized] with a great kamatz; and when it is in construct, it would become confused with the construct noun — [as in] "yekar ru'ach" ("a man of a cool spirit," Proverbs 17:27) is not [the same form as] "tevunah" (understanding) — and the purpose [of the distinct vocalization] is to differentiate between them.

"And the king said," etc. — Here it would seem that the words "for this" [al zeh] are redundant, and also, in the servants' answer, what is the point of saying "with him" [imo]? It would have sufficed to say "nothing was done." However, this verse connects to the preceding verse, referring to what was stated above regarding the verse "After these events, the king promoted..." etc. (Esther 3:1) — namely, how Haman's greatness stemmed from the hanging of Bigthan and Teresh. The matter is this: the king saw — for behold, Esther had told the king [of the plot] in Mordecai's name — so the king said to himself: "Who knows whether it was in Mordecai's heart to save my life, for perhaps my life is not precious in his eyes? Why do I say this? Because he did not tell me directly; it is possible that, in the course of recounting matters, he mentioned this item without his heart being in it, and not so that I would know of the matter in order to save my life." In any case, he thought to himself: "I have no reason to feel gratitude to anyone, in essence, except to Esther, who told me" — and therefore, whatever honor and greatness would be fitting for her, beyond the fact that the royal crown already rested on her head, he thought instead, in his heart, to grant honor and greatness to the one who had brought about her marriage, namely Haman, since it was by his counsel that Vashti was killed and Esther was taken. Therefore, "I will indeed do good to him." And this is [the meaning of] "After these events the king promoted Haman" (Esther 3:1). Now, at this moment, God caused it that the king found written a matter that points with a finger [i.e., that unmistakably shows] that Mordecai's whole intention was for the king's benefit. For behold, it is not written in a manner that [merely] acknowledges the event that Mordecai reported concerning Bigthan, etc., but rather "that which he had reported... concerning those who had sought..." etc. — the sense of the matter being, as though explaining Mordecai's intent, that "that which Mordecai reported" was specifically about "that they had sought to lay a hand," etc.; that is, the intent of "that he reported" was directed at "that they had sought to lay a hand," etc. Then he said to himself: "Therefore it would have been proper to grant him honor and greatness, something I had not considered until now; and so instead I gave the honor and greatness to Haman" — the honor being that the king commanded that they bow and prostrate themselves before him, and the greatness being that he set his seat above all the officials. And this is [the meaning of] "What honor and greatness has been done for Mordecai?" — that is, "Behold, both of these were done for Haman; but for Mordecai, what was done?" — for behold, both of these, honor and greatness, are fitting for him "for this" — that is, because it was found written that [his report] was intended for my benefit. Alternatively, [the king's words] "for this" may mean "in this particular way" — for even though Mordecai sits at the king's gate, which gives him a seat of prominence, that honor was not on account of this [report], since he had already been sitting at the king's gate long before. "Then the king's servants who ministered to him said" — [these were] his own servants, not the scribes, for it was Haman's relatives who were the scribes, whereas these were merely his servants — "[nothing] was done with him" [imo] — meaning: "with him nothing was done; [something] was done only with someone else," namely Haman, as discussed — for regarding the very matter about which Esther had told the king, etc., the king promoted Haman. Yet even so, it would have sufficed to say "nothing was done for him," matching the king's own wording when he said, "What honor and greatness has been done for Mordecai?" — where he did not say "with Mordecai." But [the servants] intend something further, along the lines of Ruth's words: "the name of the man with whom I did [this] today" (Ruth 2:19) — namely, that the giver of charity and its recipient each earn merit through the other, this one through that one and that one through this one, so that they come to be considered as gaining merit together. So too, one who does good for his fellow, and his fellow in turn appreciates the favor and does good for him — each one gains merit together with his fellow, this one by doing the good, and that one by not being ungrateful. And this is [the meaning of] "nothing was done with him" — for since he did good [for the king], but the king did not do good for him, they could not be considered as having gained merit together. Further, [the servants] hint by using the word "davar" [a thing/matter] — meaning, "with him [Mordecai] no davar was done; only with Haman was a davar done," namely the king's decree and edict, which was to destroy, etc. [Esther's people] — hinting to the king how [Haman] repaid evil for good, in that he sold [the Jewish people] to be destroyed, etc. — [selling] the very one who had spoken well on behalf of the king.

The questions: What is the meaning of the doubling, 'honor and dignity'? And to Haman he said only, 'whom the king delights to honor' — the words 'for this' are superfluous. "What has been done, honor and dignity" — the king asked: surely two things are due to him for this: first, honor at the time, to make known what he had done and accomplished in saving the king from death; second, greatness for the future, to elevate him above all the officers. And even though he knew that greatness had already been done for Mordecai, in that he sat at the king's gate, he asked what greatness had been done for him for this — since his sitting at the king's gate was because he was the guardian of Esther, and not on account of this.

"Honor and greatness" (verse 3) — the meaning of "honor" (yekar) is glory/respect, and it is temporary; one can grant a very great honor for the moment. And "greatness" (gedulah) is a greatness that is permanent, that endures. And so that Haman would think the king wished to grant him this honor — for if he knew that the matter did not truly pertain to him, it would diminish the honor — the king asked only (below, verse 6), "What is to be done for the man in whose honor the king delights," but did not ask about "greatness," for then Haman would know that the matter did not pertain to him, since the king had already made Haman greater than all the officers (above, 3:1), and what more could be done for him? Therefore the king said, "What is to be done for the man in whose honor the king delights," for a permanent greatness could not be granted to Haman any more than he already had. "Nothing was done for him." One may ask: why was it not done for him at the outset? One can answer that this matter was from Hashem, may He be blessed, that it should be reserved for Mordecai for the end. And one can further explain that at first Ahasuerus thought there was no need to grant honor and greatness to one who saves the king from death, since one is obligated to do this even for the lowliest of the lowly — so why should honor and greatness be done for him? But afterward he thought: perhaps Esther and Haman are conspiring evil against me, since Esther had invited Haman [to the banquet], and a person does not wish to reveal [a plot] (Megillah 15b) when he stands to gain nothing from it, for he feared Esther and Haman. And just as Ahasuerus did no good for Mordecai, who had revealed the plot of Bigthan and Teresh, so too he would not do good for one who reveals something about Esther and Haman. Concerning this he said, "What honor and greatness shall we do for Mordecai for this," for one ought to do good for one who reveals a matter such as this.

"And the king said," etc. — It would have been proper to say [first], "And Haman came into the court of the king's house," and afterward, "And the king said: Who is in the court?" — rather than first stating that the king sensed his arrival, and only afterward saying "Now Haman had come" — for even if we explain that Haman had already come earlier [before the king's question], it still would have been better to present the matters in their proper order: "Haman came," and afterward, "the king sensed him." Also, in the statement "Behold, Haman is standing in the court," there is redundancy, for it would have been fitting simply to say "It is Haman," as those answering the king's question "Who is in the court?" should have replied, "It is Haman" — why then did they elaborate at length, saying "Behold, Haman is standing in the court"? And moreover, the word "behold" [hinneh] does not quite fit here. For this reason, let us pay attention to the phrase "Who is in the court" [mi va-chatzer], where the letter bet is vocalized with a segol, not a patach. Now, when the king heard that no honor had been done for Mordecai, he was astonished, and said, "Who is in the court?" — meaning, "Who is this who stands in the king's court, a minister, a great man, who does not take care to do good to one who deserves good, so that if the king does not attend to it, he would remind him?" Therefore they answered and said, "Behold, Haman is before us," for he had [just] come, and he is the one who stands in the king's court, holding a position and rank whose responsibility it is to attend to the king's affairs — and this is the answer to his question, "Who is in the court?" Alternatively, [the king] may be saying, "Who is in the court" — [meaning:] "Did you not say that nothing was done with him [Mordecai], meaning [something was done] only with someone else? Who is [that one] in the court?" — that is, who is [that one] in the king's court, holding the rank of which you spoke, to whom honor and greatness were done "for this"? And Hashem brought it about that Haman came just then, and they said, "Behold, Haman" — he is the one of whom we said that a matter was done with him, and he now stands in the court. And it is fitting to know why it was that Haman came before morning, and did not wait to come at a proper hour. Perhaps this is hinted at in the words "that he had prepared for him," which otherwise seem redundant. Rather, it should be understood as stated above: that he made the gallows fifty cubits high in order to combine, in its making, all fifty forces of impurity, so that he might prevail over [Mordecai], since he is holy. Therefore, now too, he went, as he had done time and again, to consult omens and divinations, and took counsel to come before the rising of dawn, at the time when the power of the external [demonic] forces rules — as our Rabbis of blessed memory said concerning the guardian angel of Esau, who was [Jacob's] elder, namely Samael, who said to Jacob, "Send me away, for dawn has risen" (Genesis 32:27) — meaning, [he sought release] so that Jacob's ascendancy would not reach the point where he could overcome him, once the time of his own dominion had passed. So too did Haman act: since it was through his own hands that the preparations of the forces of impurity were made in fashioning the gallows, so too, before morning, at the time when the ministering powers of his forces would assist him, he came. And this is [the meaning of] "and Haman had come" — and why while it was still night? Because it was in order to tell the king to hang Mordecai on the gallows that he had prepared for him — meaning, just as he had prepared the gallows through the preparations of his forces, so too he needed to rise early in the morning to come to the king at that time, so that the king would issue the decree, and he would erect it for him. And this is why it does not say "that he had made for him," but rather "that he had prepared for him" — for he had made a preparation for it to be used against Mordecai.

"Who is in the court" — this makes known the intensity of the miracle, that it was not natural but providential; for at that very moment Haman came to hang Mordecai, and the Orchestrator of all causes had already prepared an instrument of death for Haman himself.

"And the king said: Who is in the court" (verse 4). As for the king's asking "Who is in the court" — perhaps no one was in the court at all. One can answer that the king's court is never empty of people, for people always come there, and so the king asked who was in the court. And it appears that Ahasuerus thought: if he were to say that one particular official among the important men should perform this honor and glory for Mordecai, it would be a disgrace to that official — for why should he do this for Mordecai and not someone else do it? And he would think the king had done this to him out of hatred, and this would cause hatred within the kingdom. Therefore he thought: whoever comes into the court — when he comes before me I will ask him (verse 6), "What is to be done for the man in whose honor the king delights," and then he will not think the king did this to him out of hatred. And had there been no important person in the court, the king would not have said, "Let him come in." And the Midrash expounds (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1057) that Ahasuerus saw in a dream that Haman was coming to kill him, and he was uncertain whether this dream was untrue, or whether it was a true dream. Therefore he asked "Who is in the court," [thinking] perhaps the dream was true. And they told him Haman was in the court, and he said, it is a true dream. "To hang Mordecai on the gallows that he had prepared for him." In the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 10:2): "that he had prepared for himself." It appears they noted precisely that it should have been written "that he had made," but the term "preparation" (hakhanah) applies even when one did not intend it — in the end, it is prepared for him, and through his own doing it becomes prepared. But the term "made" (asah) applies only when one intends to make [something for a particular purpose], for this term is said of the very act of making. But "preparation" can be used even though he did not make it for Haman — in the end, through his own deeds it became prepared for him. And one can further explain that they noted precisely that it is written "for him (lo)," when it should have been written only "on the gallows that he had prepared." Rather, it is written "for him" precisely to say that he had prepared it for himself. And this comes to say that such is the nature of Haman's affair: everything he thought to do to Mordecai was turned back upon himself. And do not say that it was turned back upon Haman only afterward, when they sought to hang Haman and found the gallows there (below, 7:10) — this is not so; rather, from the very beginning it was already prepared to be turned back upon him. And this matter reveals the nature of the miracle that was performed — that everything was turned back upon him. For when he thought to destroy Israel, whose very existence depends on Hashem, may He be blessed, Himself, and it is impossible to destroy them, it was therefore turned back upon himself. This is comparable to one who throws a stone with great force against an iron wall in order to knock down the wall — the stone is then turned back upon the thrower. So too, when Haman wished to destroy and annihilate Mordecai and his people, who possess the great strength that comes from Hashem, may He be blessed, everything was therefore turned back upon him. Furthermore, we have already said that Haman's going out from the house of Ahasuerus "joyful and glad of heart" (above, 5:9) was for him "before ruin, pride" (Proverbs 16:18), and immediately afterward he made the gallows (above, 5:14) on which he was hanged. And so his joy and gladness of heart were, in their entirety, [only] "before ruin."

"whom the king delights to honor" (chafetz bikaro) — the king desires to do him honor. "And Haman said in his heart" — There is an individual view that from this verse [we learn] that this scroll was written through prophecy, for who knows the secrets of the heart except Hashem, who reveals His secret to His servants the prophets. But others say that it was by way of reasoning, or that Haman revealed his secret afterward, or on that very day — similar to "and Esau said in his heart" (Genesis 27:41). And the truth is that this scroll was written with Divine Inspiration (ru'ach ha-kodesh). We find [the form] "le-mi yachpotz" ("whom he desires") and also "ve-darko yechpatz" ("and He delights in his way") (Psalms 37:23) — two different grammatical patterns.

"So Haman came in," etc. — It is fitting to pay attention to why it was that he had to ask Haman, saying to him, "What shall be done," etc., and only afterward command him to carry it out by his own hand, so that he himself would be the herald, proclaiming loudly, "So shall it be done to the man," etc. And furthermore, why was it that, before he even asked his opinion as to what should be done to the man, he did not say to him, "What do you seek, and who brought you here before morning?" Now, we have indeed already written that all his relief and all the king's desire arose from anxiety over the hidden matter between Esther and Haman, for he did not know whether they were whispering against him. And therefore he commanded that the book of records be brought, to find out who was the man who had revealed the king's secret and had not been repaid a good reward — for that reason none of his servants was troubled on his account, and none uncovered his ear to him. And for this reason he sought to repay that man's reward in full, adding a fifth to it besides, so that it would be known before the eyes of all that great is the one who tells a secret matter before the king — so that then, whoever knew that Esther and Haman were surely concealing something would "leap like a hart" (Isaiah 35:6) and reveal the secret to the king. Each one said in his heart: even if I say I will pay Mordechai a precious and great reward for this, and not through Haman's own hand, all of this is not equal in worth — for on account of that, whoever stood within the secret counsel of the queen and Haman would come and tell. For behold, it would be as though he were holding back his own hand, saying: if, against the king's chamberlains, a man might dare in his heart to reveal their secret, it is not so against the queen, and not against Haman, whom the king set upon a throne above all the officials who were with him — for they would surely crush his skull, and what man would dare raise his hand or his foot against them? Therefore the king acted with wisdom in two respects. One: that the elevation and honor to be done for Mordechai should be greater than the honor of Haman's own glory. And therefore he asked him, "What shall be done to the man," etc., so that it would occur to him that the king was speaking about him, and so that in answering the question he would propose an honor even greater than the honor of his own glory. And for this same reason — so that it would occur to him that the king meant him — he did not say, "What shall be done to the man whom the king desires in his greatness," for then it would have occurred to him that the king meant someone else. Rather, he spoke in such a way that, seeing that no greatness was mentioned, he would say in his heart: this can be none other than myself, for greatness has already been given to me above all the officials, and all I lack is some additional honor — in such a way that he would ask for something beyond his own honor. And it was in the king's heart that it should be known before the eyes of all that the one who reveals a secret before the king is higher than Haman, whose throne is above all the officials — so that by this, whoever knew the secret of Haman and the queen would come to the king and not be afraid, for he would say, "I am greater than he." Second: there was in the king's heart something even greater than this, namely, to have the honor performed by Haman's own hand, so that Haman would be to him like a serving lad, a herald proclaiming loudly before him, "So shall it be done," etc., in a place where people could see — for then all who saw Mordechai's honor, and how Haman was made contemptible before his eyes, would say: exceedingly great, in wondrous fashion, is the honor of the one who reveals the king's secret — for behold, a man who set his throne above all the officials with him is brought low to the ground, made to reach the dust, before the one who tells the matter! And then a runner would race like a gazelle — whoever knew the secret of Haman and the queen — and tell it, and would not fear Haman's greatness even if he spoke against him, for how would Haman be reckoned before the one who reveals the king's secret? And as part of this whole matter, we find and see good sense and understanding in the fact that the king did not ask him, when he came before him: "Why did you hurry to come, before morning, to the king's gate? What do you seek?" Indeed, this came about from Hashem, lest the king become exceedingly and greatly angry at Queen Esther — for behold, once Haman's matter became known, that he had come to hang Mordechai, the king's heart would melt within him over the fact that no one had told him, no one had made known to him, the counsel of Haman and the queen. And therefore he sought to honor Mordechai, the one who had told the king's matter, so that on account of him others would see and likewise act — namely, those who knew the counsel of the queen and Haman. So then, if now, when the king heard that Haman had come to hang Mordechai, his fury would blaze up against him, and he would say — this can only be the wickedness of heart of the queen and Haman, and they are whispering against me, for behold, so that it not be told to me, those who seek my life are hiding from me anyone who would reveal the secret of my enemies, so that no man should come to expose their hidden schemes! — then he might do harm suddenly and rashly, and might even stretch out his hand against Esther, before he knew the truth of the matter, for he was a rash and impulsive king. Therefore Hashem, Master of Hosts, arranged it so that, before Haman could answer, the king would already have opened his mouth to ask him, saying, "What shall be done to the man," etc. — and it was not yet known to him that Haman had made a gallows for Mordechai in his house — until he would come to know that the queen's hand had not been with Haman; for the opposite was true, that her hatred of him was utter hatred, as she said to him, "For we are sold," etc., "this wicked Haman." Then, once he knew that Haman had made the gallows, his wrath would fall upon Haman alone. Now let us return to elucidating the verse. It states, "Whom would the king delight to give honor," etc. It is fitting to note that the word "yoter" [more] is accented on its final syllable [milra], which indicates that its meaning is not that he desired his own honor more than the honor of someone else, but rather that it refers back to the word "honor" — as if to say, "To whom would the king delight to give honor that is yoter" — meaning extra and abundant. And furthermore, the sense of "mimeni" [than me] in his saying "yoter mimeni" is like the usage in (Esther 1:19) "who is better than she" (ha-tovah mimenah), and (1 Samuel 15:28) "to your fellow who is better than you" (le-re'akha ha-tov mimkha). So then, his saying "yoter" is superfluous, yet functions as though it were made explicit. And the matter is this: Haman said in his heart, why did he see fit to ask my opinion as to what should be done to the man, etc., rather than do it on his own, or ask someone else? Now, there is no doubt that whatever appears honorable in my own eyes, given my greatness — my throne having been set above all the officials — is an honor of far greater worth than what would appear as honor and glory to one not as great as I. Therefore this can only mean that it is in the king's heart to bestow an honor of great excess. Each one [in such a position] says in his heart: surely, the honor ought to be fitting to the stature of its recipient — for indeed our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said that when Haman spoke to the king, proposing that this be done for Mordechai the Jew, thinking a small measure would suffice for him, the king answered him, "Omit nothing!" If so, [Haman reasoned,] the great honor that I believe is in the king's heart to bestow cannot be fitting for anyone but myself — for "to whom would the king delight to give an honor that is yoter," one of great excess, than to me? Therefore he determined in his own mind that the king meant him, and so he rose to great heights, matching also his own sense of his greatness — to ride upon the king's own horse, and to wear his own garment — for there is scarcely anything higher than this, except the throne itself. "And Haman said to the king, 'The man whom the king delights,'" etc. — Now, this statement is not at all necessary for his answer, and it would have been fitting for him to begin, "Let royal apparel be brought," etc. Why, then, did he repeat, saying, "the man whom the king delights to honor," adding yet another mention of "the king"? Moreover, it does not connect grammatically with what follows: had he said, "To him whom the king delights to honor, let apparel be brought," etc., that would have been correct. But as he phrases it, "let them bring" does not refer back to the man just mentioned, but rather to someone else — the one who brings the apparel. Now, regarding this, let us examine precisely the cantillation mark of zakef gadol upon the word "ish" [man] — both in "ba-ish," which the king used in saying "what shall be done to the man," and in Haman's own statement, "the man whom the king," etc. But note that the whole word itself is superfluous, for he could have said, "what shall be done to whomever the king delights to honor." Rather, the king's intent was to hint to him that he meant someone genuinely significant, so that he would deceive himself — and this is conveyed by the word "ba-ish" rather than otherwise, for the word "ish" denotes importance, as it does with every instance of "ish" in Scripture; and it is further hinted at by the cantillation mark of raised voice [the pausal accent], which indicates a man of note, a possessor of great stature. Therefore he thought that the king was speaking about him. And nevertheless, to reinforce the matter, he repeated and said, "the man whom the king," etc. — meaning, as you say, so it is: it is indeed a significant man whom the king delights to honor, and you speak of someone of great importance. And this is why, here too, the same cantillation mark appears as with the word "ba-ish" that the king used. It is further possible to understand this along the same lines, in light of what we know from our Rabbis, of blessed memory, that two men in this scroll are called "ish" — Mordechai and Haman — and of them it is said, "according to every man's [ish va-ish] pleasure" (Esther 1:8). And the king intended Mordechai when he said, "ba-ish asher," etc. And it may be that in his astonishment Haman hinted that it could not be that the king would desire to honor Mordechai more than he would desire to honor Haman, when he said, "to whom would [the king] delight," etc. — and therefore he repeated and said, "ish asher," etc., to say that he himself is already a very significant man, as hinted by the cantillation mark upon "whom the king delights to honor" — and on the strength of this, he says, "let them bring," etc.

The questions: Why did he hasten to repay Mordecai immediately, early in the morning? "What shall be done" — Ahasuerus knew that Haman would mistakenly think the matter pertained to himself, and he wanted this, so that the honor Haman would request for himself would be done instead for Mordecai, since in truth the honor belonged not to Haman but to Mordecai. For this reason he did not ask him what should be done for a man whom the king desires to honor and elevate to greatness, for then Haman would understand that the king was not thinking of him, since he had already attained the ultimate greatness, having been made greater than all the officers. Therefore he said only 'to honor him,' so that by this Haman would be misled into thinking that it was to himself that the king wished to give honor, and would exaggerate the measure of it, and thus it would end up being done for Mordecai. And apart from this, he did not need to ask about greatness, since he had already intended to give Haman's greatness to Mordecai, seeing that the essential greatness belonged to him.

"Now Haman said in his heart, etc." (verse 6) — In the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 10:3): "Now Haman said in his heart" — the wicked are in the power of their own heart: "And Esau said in his heart" (Genesis 27:41), "The fool has said in his heart" (Psalms 14:1), "And Jeroboam said in his heart" (I Kings 12:26), "Now Haman said in his heart." But the righteous have their heart in their power: this is what is written, "And Hannah, she spoke upon her heart" (I Samuel 1:13), "And Daniel placed it upon his heart" (Daniel 1:8), "And David said to his heart" (I Samuel 27:1), and they resemble their Creator: "And Hashem said in His heart" (Genesis 8:21). The explanation of the Midrash is that the heart is the beginning of thought and knowledge, in that a person thinks in his heart. Now the wicked person has no elevated level; on the contrary, the very essence of the wicked person is complete absence, as he is called "a wicked man deserving death" (Numbers 35:31) — so how could the wicked person, in whom is this absence, not be in the power of the heart, since the heart is only the beginning? But the righteous person — the very essence of his level is exceedingly lofty — so how could the heart, which is only the beginning, not be in his power? Therefore the wicked person is in the power of his heart, but the righteous person has an exceedingly lofty, God-like level; therefore the heart, which is only the beginning of thought, is in the power of the righteous person, who has an exceedingly lofty level. And so too regarding Hashem, may He be blessed, whose greatness is without limit, therefore the heart, which comes as the beginning of thought, is in His power. The general principle of the matter is this: the thought and the knowledge — which is the power* of the wicked person — which comes and reaches his true essence, is in the power of his heart. For whatever reaches the true reality of the wicked person reaches the reality that he is wholly a being of absence; therefore the wicked person is in the power of his heart. But the righteous person — his true essence is an exceedingly lofty level — therefore the heart, which is said to represent the beginning, is in his power. Understand these words.

Questions: Why did Haman repeat "the man whom the king delights to honor"? "The man" — he answered him with counsel and knowledge, saying: How is it possible to ask what should be done for the man whom the king delights to honor? Is this not itself the very thing the king desires — to honor him? This is the greatest honor and glory there is, such that nothing is more honorable than it. And this is what he meant: as for what you ask, what should be done — I answer you: let this very thing be done for him, that it be made known that he is the man whom the king delights to honor, for that is the greatest honor; only let them bring royal apparel to publicize the matter.

"let them bring" (yavi'u) — [meaning] the servants. "and on whose head a royal crown is set" — Some say that he [Haman] sensed it would anger the king [to request] the royal crown, on account of the honor of royalty, and therefore he said "let the apparel and the horse be given" and did not mention the crown. But what is correct in my eyes is that the vav of "be-rosho" ("on its head") refers back to the horse, for there is a horse of the king upon whose head they place a royal crown when the king rides upon it, and none of the king's servants is permitted to ride upon it — and this is a well-known matter.

"Let royal apparel be brought," etc. — Here let us pause and reflect on the wonders of God: how great are His deeds and His providence, blessed be He, extending to the utmost detail, nevertheless. For surely any wise-hearted person will be astonished and will hiss in amazement at the uncircumcised heart of Haman — how he placed his life in his own hand when he was so brazen as to ask, "let royal apparel be brought," etc., "and a horse," etc. For is it not a fixed law that whoever wears the garment of the king or rides upon his horse is put to death? So that the speaker, in speaking such a thing, speaks against his own life a bad and bitter matter, like this evil thing. What then emboldened his heart to speak such a thing? However — as to that honor being carried out by Haman's own counsel and through his own hand: we have written that Ahasuerus acted with the wisdom explained above. But Hashem, the God of the world — His thoughts are not the thoughts of flesh and blood — and it was from Hashem that this matter went forth, that the king should ask Haman what should be done for the man, and that this very honor should be brought about through Haman's own hand, so that it would be he who would decree the payment to the man according to his deeds. This is so because, through the fact that Mordechai did not rise nor stir before Haman, it came about, link by link, that Haman sought to destroy all the Jews together with Mordechai, and that Mordechai went out, his garments torn, clothed in sackcloth, crying bitterly in the marketplaces and the streets, as is explicitly stated: "and Mordechai knew," etc., "and he tore," etc. Therefore the recompense of God came, and He put it into the king's heart to ask Haman what should be done, and put into his mouth to answer with those very words, and his own hands would carry it out, since the king decreed upon him to pay the man according to his deeds. For Haman, who sought to abase Mordechai before him, found it turned about instead: he himself would be subjugated before Mordechai like a servant before his master, and would counsel the king to pay Mordechai the reward, the fruit of his deeds, in this world — in place of the humiliation brought upon him through wicked Haman's doing. Is it not so that, corresponding to the fact that he did not lower his stature before Haman, he will now tread upon Haman's high places — and how much more so, according to what our Sages, of blessed memory, said, that it was upon Haman's very back that Mordechai trod in order to mount the horse? And corresponding to the fact that he had worn sackcloth, it now says, "let royal apparel be brought," etc. And corresponding to the fact that his feet ran and grew weary, as it says, "and he went out to the city square" — therefore, "and the horse which he has ridden," etc., "and let him be led on horseback through the city square." And corresponding to the ashes that were upon his head, as it says, "and he put on sackcloth and ashes," it is now said, "and on whose head a crown royal is set." And corresponding to the great and bitter cry in the city square, now they will lead him on horseback through the city square, and there they will proclaim before him, "so shall it be done for the man," etc. Furthermore, a second point showing the greatness of His providence, blessed be He: that corresponding to each of Mordechai's acts of self-abasement, the rewards were magnified in kind — except for the tearing of his garments. For behold, he tore his garments and put on sackcloth, and corresponding to the sackcloth he was clothed in royal apparel; but corresponding to the tearing of his garments, no fruit of reward was specifically designated for him. Now, let us take note of what our Sages, of blessed memory, said: "Benjamin caused his brothers to tear their garments," etc. Why is it that, of everything Mordechai did, they asked "who caused it" only regarding the tearing? Rather, our Sages, of blessed memory, were troubled by the fact that for all his other acts, Hashem paid him his reward within three days — except for the tearing of his garments. Therefore they said that through the tearing of his garments he paid the debt of his ancestor Benjamin, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said: "Benjamin caused his brothers to tear their garments," as the verse states, "and the goblet was found in Benjamin's sack, and they tore their garments" — "let Mordechai, who descends from Benjamin, come and tear on behalf of Israel." If so, then, what reward could they possibly reckon for him in that he was merely paying off that debt? Furthermore, a second lesson: He, blessed be He, taught us here a pleasant and lovely teaching in the service of Hashem — namely, that one who is humbled for the sake of Heaven, from that very place his greatness will sprout forth. For behold, whoever saw Mordechai — who sat in the king's gate and was great among the Jews — now with torn garments, clothed in sackcloth and ashes, in the city square, crying a great and bitter cry, would surely think him contemptible in the eyes of manservants and maidservants, and that the light of his countenance would be dimmed from that day on. Yet, on the contrary, the very opposite occurred: in that very place he was exalted in the eyes of the king and of the entire populace, and they proclaimed aloud, "so shall it be done for the man," etc. Now, to arrive at the precise sense of the verses, let us take note of the word "bo" [in it] — in "which the king has worn [lavash bo]," which is superfluous. Moreover, it indicates that the king himself was already clothed in that very garment which he wore "in it"; for were this not so, it should have said "she-nitlabesh bo ha-melekh" [that the king clothed himself in it], and then the word "bo" would have made sense. And likewise regarding the statement "and on whose head a crown royal is set": if the meaning is that they should bring the horse — identified as the one upon which the king rode when a royal crown was upon the king's own head — then it would have been proper to say, "which the king rode upon, when a royal crown was set upon his head." And if the meaning is that a royal crown should be set upon the head of the man whom the king desires to honor, then it would have been proper to say "and a royal crown," referring back to the opening word "let them bring," so that among the things to be brought would be included a royal crown — and, moreover, in that case a crown is never mentioned again afterward, in the account of the deed's execution. Now, regarding the verse "I put on righteousness, and it clothed me" (Job 29:14), our Sages, of blessed memory, said: there is one who is fit to wear a garment, yet the garment is not fit for him; and there is one whose garment is fit for him, yet he himself is not fit to wear it. But when the two are fit for one another, then he clothes himself in the garment, and the garment clothes itself in him. In just this way it says, "asher lavash bo ha-melekh" [which the king has worn in it]: had it said merely "asher lavash ha-melekh" [which the king has worn], it would appear that the garment gained its importance only from the fact that the king wore it — meaning the garment was fit to be worn by him. But by adding the word "bo," it indicates that the king, too, clothed himself and gloried in it, for it is a very important garment, such that it was fit for the king himself to wear. And with great skill he was brief: by saying "asher lavash" he means that the king wore the garment, and by saying "bo" he means that the king, too, was clothed in it — and that is the sense of "bo ha-melekh" [in it, the king]. And regarding the statement "and on whose head is set," etc., our Sages, of blessed memory, said in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer that Haman first intended to say, "let them bring the crown," but then, seeing the king's face changing, he retracted and spoke instead of the garment and the horse. And I think he was deliberating within himself, saying in his heart: "Woe is me if I say that they should bring the royal crown; woe is me if I do not say it. If I say it, perhaps he will be angered, and I will bring my own head to ruin before the king; and if I do not say it, I will forfeit great honor." Therefore he acted with cunning and spoke vague, ambiguous words, such that if the king took offense he would not be caught, and if the king did not take offense he could still make use of the crown. This is seen in that he did not say "ve-cheter malchut" [and a royal crown], which would clearly mean that a royal crown should also be brought; and likewise he did not say "asher rachav alav ha-melekh ka'asher nitan keter malchut be-rosho" [which the king rode upon, when a royal crown was set upon his head], but only "ve-asher nitan keter malchut be-rosho" [and on whose head a royal crown is set] — so that, if the king did not take offense, and it appeared that his face shone favorably toward him, he could say that this was the meaning: "ve-asher nitan," that is, that they should also bring "that which is set," and then he would explain what the thing set was, and where it was set — the thing set being a royal crown, and where it was set being "be-rosho," namely, upon the head of the aforementioned king. And if the king were to take offense, he would say that the phrase refers back to the horse — that it is the horse upon which he rode when a royal crown had been set upon its rider's head. But once the words had left his mouth, he perceived that what he had said was ill-conceived, and so he corrected himself, retracing his steps by saying, "ve-natun ha-levush ve-ha-sus" [and let the garment and the horse be given] — which is itself superfluous, since it would have been proper simply to say "ve-natun otam" [and let them be given]. But in order to repair what he had distorted, he said "ve-natun ha-levush ve-ha-sus," meaning that his statement had included only these two things and nothing else. And to make this clear, he added, "by the hand of one of the king's most noble princes," so as to convey in his heart: as for the horse and the garment, since they belong to the king, he specified that they should be handed over only by one of the king's most noble princes — and how much more so now with regard to the crown, which no man should think would be handed over under any circumstances whatsoever. And should you say that what he meant by "by the hand of one of the king's most noble princes" pertains to the honor of the man whom the king desires to honor, and not to the actual handing over of the garment and horse belonging to the king — I answer: the primary action performed for that man, namely the clothing and the mounting, was not done by the hand of one of the king's most noble princes, but rather by others, as it says, "and let them clothe him and let them mount him" [in the plural], and it does not say "and let him clothe" and "let him mount" [in the singular]. If so, it must now be said that what is to be handed over by the hand of one of the king's most noble princes pertains only to the honor of the garment and the horse, inasmuch as they belong to the king.

"And on whose head [a crown royal] is set" — some explain that they used to place a royal crown on the horse's head; and some explain it as referring to the horse upon which the king rode at the time the royal crown was placed on his own head, that is, on the day he was crowned king.

"and on whose head a crown royal is set" (verse 8) — This means "and which was given to be a royal crown on his head," for it is certainly the way of people to also have some kind of ornament on their heads, like the "crown of bridegrooms," and this is mentioned in several places (Sotah 49a, Gittin 7a). Therefore Scripture comes to explain "and which was given to be a royal crown," that is, that it was placed on the king's head to be a crown upon his head. Nevertheless, it is possible that this crown could also belong to someone else, but for him it would not be a royal crown, only an ornament. Now, if it were given only in connection with kingship, this would be considered as though kingship itself were being given to him. Therefore Scripture did not write "and the crown that was placed on the king's head," for if so, it would appear as though kingship were being given to him when a royal crown was placed on his head. Therefore it says that that ornament which was placed on the king's head to crown him would be placed on the head of this man whose honor the king desires, but it would not be a royal crown. For even though it was placed as a royal crown on the king's head, nevertheless one can use it without its being a royal crown for the one on whose head it is placed, as we said, since it is the way [of such a thing] to be an ornament even for other people as well. Therefore Haman said that the item which was given to be a royal crown on the king's head should be given to this man's head as well, only in his case it would not be a royal crown. And it says "a man whom the king desires to honor" (verse 7) — yet it would have sufficed to say "let them bring apparel, etc." Rather, had it not said so, it would have implied that "a man whom the king desires to honor" [means] that because he is an important person, the king therefore wishes to bestow honor upon him; and if so, when this honor is done for him, he becomes as important as the king. Therefore it states that this thing does not come to him because of his own importance, but only because the king desires his honor; therefore the honor done to him is as though it were done to the king himself. And even though they said (Sanhedrin 22a) that one may not ride his horse nor use his scepter — this applies when the king does not desire his honor; but when the king desires his honor, it is proper to do it for him, for this is as though it were done to the king himself, since it is his desire. Therefore it uses this language, etc. And as to what it says, to take the apparel that the king wore, and the horse that he rode upon, and the crown that is on the king's head — this is because the king is entirely set apart from the general public, to the point that he is set apart in his beginning, and he is set apart [in] his end, and in himself. Therefore the crown that is on his head indicates that he is set apart in his beginning, for the crown indicates that he is set apart from his beginning. And the horse that he rode upon, for the horse is below the one who rides upon it. And the Rabbis said (Shabbat 152a), "for the king rides a horse," because the gait of the horse is a manner of elevation, raising itself up from the ground. Therefore, "for the king rides a horse," in that it raises itself upward. And because the horse is below the rider, this indicates that with regard to the end and the lower dimension the king is set apart from the general public; therefore he must have a special horse. And the garment, which is on his body itself, through this he is set apart in himself. Therefore it says that they should bring the apparel that the king wore, so that the honor of kingship would be upon his very person. And these three things also indicate three attributes that the king possesses: the first, that he is lifted up above the entire people, that he is greater and higher than they. And this is what the crown indicates, which is on the head, above — it indicates that he is lifted up above. And furthermore, he rules and governs with his power over the people, to the point that the people are considered below him. And this is what the horse indicates, upon which he rides and by which he rules over them. For the horse raises itself up in its gait, and he rides and rules over it, and so too the king rules and governs the people, who raise themselves up. And the garment indicates his own honor, in that he is set apart in honor from the rest of creation. And whatever glory is in it belongs to him personally. Therefore it says that he should take these three things, which indicate that this man who did this favor for the king — saving his life, and thereby preserving the kingship — it is fitting that these things, which belong to the king, should also be given to him. "and let the apparel be given, etc." (verse 9) — but it does not mention the crown, for it speaks as follows: that they should bring the apparel and the horse, and one of the king's officers should dress him; but the crown should not be placed on his head by one of the officers — rather, it should be given when he himself gives the crown. Certainly, when the king himself gives him the crown personally, one cannot say that this is as though he crowned him in the king's place, since the king himself gave him the crown. But if it were someone else who placed the royal crown on his head, this would appear as though that other person had crowned him. Therefore, regarding "and let the apparel and the horse be given," this could be done by one of the king's officers, since this does not constitute kingship. But the crown, which represents kingship, should not properly be done by the hand of another — rather, the king himself must place the crown on his head, and this would not appear as though someone else had crowned him. And so, above, we explained regarding (2:17) "and he set a royal crown on her head" — that he himself placed the royal crown on her head, for had others placed the crown on her head, it would be as though they had crowned Esther. Therefore it was Haman's intent that the king himself would place the crown on his (Haman's) own head. But the words of our Rabbis of blessed memory in the Gemara state that when he mentioned the crown, Ahasuerus's face turned pale, and afterward he did not mention the crown, but said only "and let the apparel and the horse be given, etc." — he did not mention the crown. It appears that this is because they found it difficult [to explain] why Ahasuerus did not take the crown and place it on Mordechai's head. In any event, one must say that Ahasuerus did not want the crown to be placed on his head, and so they said that Haman, too, did not mention the crown for this reason, because Ahasuerus's face had turned pale. Now, although one could answer that Haman thought he was asking this for himself, and he was in Ahasuerus's presence, so the king himself could place the crown on his (Haman's) head there — but the matter, when it came to Mordechai, was different, for Mordechai was not in his presence, as he said to him (verse 10), "Go and do so to Mordechai the Jew, who sits at the king's gate" — if so, it would not be fitting for the king himself to do this for Mordechai. And as for why the king did not summon Mordechai to himself — apart from this, it would have been fitting to do so, for the king to say to him, "You did this thing for me, therefore it is fitting for the king to honor you." But this is because Mordechai sat at the king's gate, and had he summoned him to himself, it would be as though he had taken him away from his position of service at the king's gate, and he would be with him to be before the king like the officers who see the king's face (above, 1:14) — and this the king did not want; rather, he should remain among those who sit at the king's gate as he had been, and in this capacity he would be responsible for guarding the king, as he had done. Therefore it says, "and do so to Mordechai the Jew who sits at the king's gate." And furthermore, when Haman himself would go to Mordechai, this would be a greater honor for him than if Mordechai had been summoned to come to him.

Let the robe and the horse be handed to a man. But he did not mention the crown, because he saw that the king became jealous when he said that they should place the crown on [another] person’s head.

"And let them array him and have him ride" — Haman wanted to increase his own honor by means of many officers and mighty heralds, so that the matter would be publicized; therefore he spoke in the plural, that the matter be done by many honored people.

"Thus shall it be done to the man..." (verse 9) — but above it is written (verse 6), "What is to be done with the man" [בָּאיש, with a bet]. This is because Ahasuerus said "מה לעשות בָּאיש" [what is to be done with the man], and this thing that is to be done is also for the sake of the king himself — for the king desires his honor because he saved him from death, and this too is a benefit to the king. Therefore he said only "מה יעשה בָּאיש" [what shall be done with the man], meaning: what shall be done through the man — and this implies that it is for the honor and benefit of the king. But "מה יעשה לָאיש" [what shall be done to the man, with a lamed] implies that it will be done for the man alone, and not for the sake of the king at all. Therefore it was not Ahasuerus's intent that something be done which is not for the king's honor, such as placing a royal crown on his head. But Haman thought that this was said about him [i.e., that the king was asking what should be done for Haman himself], and so he said that they should even place a crown on his head; and this is why he said, "Thus shall it be done to the man" [with the lamed].

"Then the king said to Haman, etc." — Behold, he [Haman] had said, "Let them bring royal apparel and a horse," implying that the bringing would be done by someone who is not one of the king's officers, the nobles — since he said "let them bring" indefinitely and in the plural. But afterward they would be given into the hand of a man from the king's officers, [to lead him] to the city square; and also the dressing and the mounting would be done by those of lower rank, and likewise the proclaiming before him. "Thus shall be done to the man" — for it is not befitting the honor of a man from the king's officers, the nobles, to dress him, mount him, and act as a herald in the city square; therefore he spoke in the plural regarding the bringing, the dressing, the mounting, and the proclaiming. However, the king — since, as stated above, his intent was to find [a way to induce] the one who would reveal the secret of the queen and of Haman, one who does not reveal what he hears — said in his heart: If this honor is done through someone else, the man who knows the secret of the queen and Haman will nevertheless surely refuse to say anything, for he will say, "Who would put his head in between great mountains?" — since the queen and Haman are not like Bigthan and Teresh. Therefore he wanted to bring Haman low beneath the one who would reveal the secret, for now people would say: Of what account is Haman, whose seat is above all the officers, before the one who reveals a secret to the king? Therefore he said: let not those beneath you bring the apparel and the horse and have them handed over by your hand to Mordecai; rather, hurry, take them yourself from their place, and let them be "as you have said, in which the king has been clothed and on which he has ridden," etc. Or, "as you have said" means: Did you not speak of the crown in an uncertain manner, as discussed above, so that your own statement was never clarified? Therefore he says only "as you have said" — for you yourself know the meaning of your own statement. And also the dressing, the mounting, and the proclaiming, of which you spoke in the plural — "let them dress him," "let them mount him," and "let them proclaim" — meaning that this should not be done by a man from the king's officers — this shall not be as you have said; rather, "do so, by your own hand, to Mordecai the Jew." And should you say: Behold, regarding the dressing and the mounting I have kept silent [and will do them myself], but as for the proclaiming — to act as a herald crying out in the marketplaces and streets like one of the base fellows — that I would consider a disgrace to myself — to this he said: "let nothing fail of all that you have spoken," etc. And note carefully that he did not say "do not diminish anything," but rather meant: do not let the worth of anything you have spoken fall, so that nothing should seem to you a fallen, lowly matter which you would refuse to perform yourself, by saying "do so to Mordecai." Or, "let nothing fail" may mean: it sometimes happens that a herald cries out in a loud voice, and when he reaches one of the words that is not in keeping with his own honor, he utters it as though it fell from his mouth, almost imperceptibly — therefore he said: let not a single word fail of all the words that you have spoken. "Thus shall be done to the man" — [meaning] it should not happen that, while proclaiming, it seems difficult to you to call him "man," so that you say instead, "thus shall be done to him whom the king desires to honor," letting the word "man" — a term of esteem — drop away; and likewise with the words "to honor him," lest you utter them as though they fell from your mouth. To this he said: "let nothing fail" — [meaning] any of the words that you are to say in your proclamation. And regarding the statement "the Jew who sits at the king's gate" — our Rabbis, of blessed memory, taught that he [the king] said to him, "do so to Mordecai," and he [Haman] answered him, "There are many Mordecais." He said to him, "the Jew." He said to him, "There are many Mordecais among the Jews." He said to him, "who sits at the king's gate." And according to the plain sense, one may say that in saying "do so to Mordecai," he was concerned lest Haman say, "Is this not a slave of mine, bought for destruction, etc., along with all the other Jews — how then shall I do him this honor?" — therefore he said "the Jew who sits at the king's gate," meaning: although he is a Jew, he was not sold to you, for behold, he is one of the king's officers who sits at the king's gate, an expression denoting a seat of authority. And according to what our Rabbis taught, that Haman was sold to Mordecai as a slave in wartime, on account of the bread with which he fed him and his army — it is possible that such a recorded matter would not have been hidden from the king, since it was from that very army that Haman was fed. And accordingly it is possible to say that he said, "do so to Mordecai the Jew" — that although he is a Jew, he was not sold to you, for behold, he is "the one who sits at the king's gate" — the very one to whom you yourself were first sold. Therefore do not disdain doing him this honor, thinking that he is your slave.

Questions: Haman said "let them array him and have him ride," yet the king commanded that he do it all himself. "Make haste, take" — the king, who saw that Haman's greatness was undeserved, and that in truth this honor was fitting for Mordecai, and who saw how far Haman's pride had reached — to the point that he wanted to make use of the king's own scepter, and all that remained for him was the kingship itself, just as Solomon said concerning Adonijah, who asked for the king's scepter, and he judged him a rebel against the king — therefore he said in his wrath that he should hasten to do so for Mordecai, for this honor belongs to him; and it is further fitting that this be done for him specifically by Haman himself, since Haman took his own greatness through cunning, it is proper that he should run before him like a slave. And "let nothing fail" of it, for it is all done in fairness and justice. Therefore he commanded that he himself do everything, without help from other officers, in the clothing and the mounting; and so he said, "of all that you have spoken," meaning that the clothing too must be done by you yourself.

"Then the king said..." (verse 10). One may ask: why did the king demean Haman by telling him that he himself must do this, when Haman had spoken [only] of it being done through one of the king's noble princes (verse 9)? Why did he command that he himself do it? It appears that this is because Ahasuerus had said that this was why his sleep was disturbed (verse 1) — that there was someone who had done him a favor, and Ahasuerus was ungrateful and had not repaid him for what he had done for him, and this is why his sleep was disturbed. So when Haman told him that such-and-such should be done, he said, "Hasten, take the apparel, etc." — since I have already acted in such a manner that I am ungrateful, therefore hasten and do this yourself, so that we not find someone else made ready before us [i.e., there be no further delay through an intermediary]. Furthermore, because Haman had come to the court at just the time when the king was speaking of "what honor and greatness should be done" (verse 4), he thought that this had happened in order to show the king that everything would be accomplished through him, for this was not for nothing. In any case, according to the words of our Sages, of blessed memory (Esther Rabbah 10:1), who said that it seemed to the king as though Haman had come to kill him, and so he had seen in his dream — one may say that it was for this reason that he said that he himself should do this deed, in order to nullify his pride and his greatness. And it further appears that for someone else to do it, this would have been a disgrace, for there is no need to perform an honor as great as this. But since Haman himself had decreed that this should be done, then it is indeed fitting to do so, and there is no disgrace in it; therefore he said, "Hasten, take the apparel, etc." And in the Gemara (Megillah 16a): "And the king said, What honor and greatness has been done..." (verse 3) — [the servants' answer] "There is nothing done for him" was not because they loved Mordecai, but because they hated Haman. This was difficult for them [the Sages] — for reason does not allow that these wicked men, who said "nothing has been done for him," should be so good that through them the redemption should come to Israel. Indeed, even those who decreed the death of Vashti (above, 1:16) — even though that was not a redemption at all — they said that Memuchan said this only for the sake of one of the reasons that they gave. [Likewise this is why one must say,] "and also Charvonah is remembered for good" — this is for the reason that will be explained. But these [servants in chapter 6], since the king was in doubt and was asking (verse 3), "What has been done, etc.," and he himself did not know [the answer] — they too ought to have said, "We do not know whether anything has been done for him." Why then did they say, "Nothing has been done for him"? Rather, it was because of their hatred for Haman that they did this.

'Then Haman took...' etc. — He did just as he had said [to the king]: he clothed Mordecai in the garment of honor immediately, but he did not have him ride until [they reached] the street of the city; rather, he led the horse by hand up to the street. Now, our Sages, of blessed memory, said that Haman was groaning as he clothed Mordecai. It is possible that this statement of theirs is hinted at in the fact that it does not say 'vehilbisho vehirkivo' [and he had him clothed and had him mounted], but rather 'vayalbesh vayarkivehu' [and he clothed him and mounted him] — so that the two-letter combination vav-yod ('וי') is found mentioned twice, once regarding the clothing and once regarding the riding [alluding to a double groan, the vav-yod sounding like 'vai,' a cry of woe] — in the manner of what our Sages, of blessed memory, said regarding the verse 'and he drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself' (Genesis 9:21), that the cry 'vai' is stated four times [through four instances of vav-yod]. So too it may be regarding the phrase 'vayalbesh vayarkivehu.' And in the Midrash, this is its language: 'Once he was mounted, he began to praise the Holy One, blessed be He: "I will extol You, Hashem, for You have drawn me up" etc.; "Hashem, my God" etc.; "Hashem, You have brought up" etc. What did his disciples say? "Sing to Hashem, His pious ones" etc., "For His anger is but a moment" etc. And what did that wicked one say? "And I said in my security" etc., "Hashem, by Your favor" etc. What did Esther say? "To You, Hashem, I call" etc., "What profit" etc. What did the Assembly of Israel say? "Hear, Hashem, and be gracious to me" etc., "You have turned" etc. What did the Holy Spirit say? "That my glory may sing praise to You" etc.' — thus far [the words of the Midrash]. It is fitting to consider: what is the connection between Mordecai and Esther and 'the dedication of the House' of David? It is possible [to explain] according to what our Sages, of blessed memory, said: that Mordecai is called 'a Jewish man' because it was through David — who came from Judah — that Mordecai came into the world, for [David] extended [mercy] to Shimei, until [Shimei] fathered the one from whom Mordecai and Esther descended, to redeem Israel. And it is possible that in the merit of this, David merited to found the House that his son would build, and that it would be called 'the dedication of the House' in his name. This is [the meaning of] 'A Psalm, a Song, for the Dedication of the House' — it is attributed to David regarding what came about through him — namely, that the one who recites these verses [is Mordecai, reciting words] which concern the matter of the redemption that came through Mordecai and Esther, all of which unfolded through David. It is further fitting to pay attention to the intent of each speaker in the verses assigned to him. Now, first, [the psalm] demonstrates the righteousness of Mordecai, for he said: 'Behold, I will extol You, Hashem, for You have drawn me up' from my distress and my sorrow — and this was not by means of the joy of my enemy, that is, he did not rejoice, and it was not through his rejoicing that You removed Your anger from me — in the manner of, 'When your enemy falls, do not rejoice' — but rather, You drew me up without his rejoicing. And all that I extol You for having drawn me up is not on account of what concerns me personally, for what am I, except that from this I will know that You will save Israel swiftly. For behold, 'Hashem, my God, I cried out to You' — the well-known crying, which was on behalf of Israel and not for myself — 'and You, Hashem, healed me' — [healed] myself. But how is it that my crying was on behalf of Israel, yet You healed me myself, and not them? This can only be explained by [the principle] that one who prays for his fellow when he himself is in need of that same thing... So I too was in need of that same thing, and You answered me first; and from this I will know that the healing of Israel will swiftly sprout forth, for I am a sign for them. And I also extol You on another count, namely: 'Hashem, You have brought up my soul from Sheol' — meaning, I do not consider [chiefly] the distress of my body, that Haman sought to kill me, but rather [I praise You] for having saved me from sin. For 'You have brought up my soul from Sheol' [means] that You saved me from the sin at Ahasuerus's feast, when I was at the king's gate and very close to doing the king's will, and I was considered as though I had already been in Sheol; and You saved me from defiling myself with the king's food and the wine of his feasts. And he also said thus: 'You have kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit' — referring to an even graver sin — that You strengthened me to restrain my strength, so as not to bow down and prostrate myself before Haman, who had the image of an idol engraved upon him — so that now I thank You both for the salvation of Israel and for their bodies, and for my own salvation with regard to the soul. His disciples, who had been in chains the night before, to be put to death in the morning, as stated at the start of this discourse, and who had wept the whole night through until their weeping rose up to heaven — they said: 'Sing to Hashem, His pious ones, and give thanks also to His holy remembrance' — that is, His Divine Presence [Shechinah], blessed be He, which is called by this name, as in the phrase, 'and this is My remembrance from generation to generation,' which is said with reference to the name of Adnut [Lordship]. For behold, even at the moment when He, blessed be He, is angry — which is only 'a moment in His anger' — life comes through His favor in that very moment, and not only after a long delay, but rather from evening to morning; for 'in the evening weeping tarries, but joy comes in the morning' — as with us today. What did the wicked one say? 'And I said in my security' etc. — meaning: let the listener not suspect me, [wondering] how, at first, I did not take to heart that Hashem would not forsake His people; for behold, 'I said in my security, I shall never be moved.' And the reason is: behold, my greatness did not come by gradual stages — for when I was lesser than the seven who see the king's face, I rose up all at once, until my throne was above all the officers; and this was not by the power of mazal [fate], but from You, Hashem, by Your favor and Your providence, that You made stand and established 'my mountain' — that is, my greatness, or my [heavenly] minister, which is 'like the mountain of his strength' — and it was a strength that could not be toppled. Therefore I said, this is nothing but Your great power, and therefore I said, 'I shall never be moved.' And it was not for nothing that You raised me up, but rather because the evil had been decreed in full measure against Your people, from You, and You delivered them into my hand, for I am the one who delivers all of them [to destruction] — for this is the way of Amalek and Israel, that when one rises, the other falls. But now I see that it was not truly directed against them; it was only outward appearance, for You had merely hidden Your face — and therefore I was terrified. What did Esther say? 'To You, Hashem, I call' etc. — She said: it is not to be ruled out that You are with me, so that I can say 'to You, Hashem' — which is spoken in direct address — meaning, You are with me; I do not need to pray, only to call out, for [mere] calling — what will it avail me? Or [it may be that] You are not attached to me, so that I could only say the word 'to You' — behold, then, 'and to Hashem I make supplication' — meaning, even if You bring about the redemption not through me, seeing that it is being accomplished not through me from now on, then Mordecai's statement will come true: 'relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish' — and this would be because, from the first feast, I did not speak to the king, and I pained the heart of Israel from that feast until now; for had I spoken then, they would have been saved. And why did You place me as a wife to Ahasuerus, if not to benefit Israel? And this is [the meaning of], 'What profit is there in my blood, that I go down to the pit' — that I find myself married to Ahasuerus without having accomplished any benefit for Israel; that is [the meaning of] 'in my going down to the pit.' And she went on to say: it should not be counted to me as a sin to go down to the pit, for I am [mere] dust of the earth — nevertheless, 'will the dust praise You?' — that is, the dust of the earth — meaning, even were I not to be punished for this, I would not merit to give You thanks, as I would if I had been married to a man of Israel; and also, Your truth [about the miracles and the deliverance] would not be told, unless it comes about through me. Therefore, let Your kindness now be with me, that the salvation of Israel be completed through me at the second feast; and through this I will know that I will not perish and will not go down to the pit, but rather that I will thank You and tell of Your truth. What did the Assembly of Israel say? 'Hear, Hashem, and be gracious to me' — meaning: behold, Mordecai — his righteousness has stood him [in good stead]; he is righteous, and he is saved from now on. But Esther is far from me, for her heart is with Haman, since after the first feast she made an appointment with him for the next day. Therefore she said: on whom do we have to rely, if not on You? And so, 'Hear, Hashem, and be gracious to me' — meaning, even if I have no merit of my own, there stands for me the verse that is written, 'and I will be gracious to whomever I will be gracious,' even though I am not worthy; and if we do have merit, but it is not sufficient to redeem us, [then] Hashem, who is the attribute of mercy [middat ha-rachamim], would help me. And all of this applies so long as we have not yet been saved; but 'in You, Hashem, have we trusted' — for the greatness of Mordecai is a sign of the beginning of our redemption, for 'You have turned my mourning into dancing for me' from now on — for the merit of my mourning, in repentance before You, has been turned for me into joy; and from now, 'You have loosed my sackcloth and girded me with gladness' — only that our salvation has not yet been revealed. The Holy Spirit, which shone upon David as he spoke this psalm concerning the future, was making a different argument, namely: 'That my glory may sing praise to You' — 'glory' is the Shechinah, which is called 'the glory of Hashem'; and through Your bringing us out, exaltation will come to us as well, for 'Hashem, my God, forever I will thank You' — for the salvation of the Holy One, blessed be He, is, as it were, the salvation of Israel.

"Then Haman took the apparel and the horse" (verse 11). In the Gemara (Megillah 16a): He went and found the Sages sitting before Mordechai, who was demonstrating to them the laws of the kometz [the priest's handful]. He said to them, "What are you occupied with?" They said to him, "When the Temple stood, the Merciful One said: whoever pledges a meal-offering should bring a full handful of it and burn it upon the altar, and it atones for him." He said to them, "Your full handful of flour comes and pushes aside this man's ten thousand talents of silver." They said to him, "A servant who acquires property — to whom does the servant belong? To whom does the property belong?" One might ask: how do we know that it was specifically the mitzvah of the Omer that he [Mordechai] was engaged in, and not some other mitzvah? Thus they also said in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 28:6): Rabbi Yochanan said, "Never let the mitzvah of the Omer be light in your eyes, for through the Omer Abraham merited to inherit the land of Canaan." This is [alluded to in] what is written, "and I will give it to you and to your descendants after you" (Genesis 17:8), on condition that "and you shall keep My covenant" (ibid. v. 9) — and what is that? This is the mitzvah of the Omer. Reish Lakish said: Never let the mitzvah of the Omer be light in your eyes, for through the mitzvah of the Omer the Holy One, blessed be He, made peace between a man and his wife — that is, through the merit of the meal-offering of barley flour. Rabbi Levi said: It was this that stood by them in the days of Haman. For Rabbi Levi said: once Mordechai saw Haman coming toward him to kill him, he said, "It seems to me that this wicked man comes only to kill me." His students were sitting before him; he said to them, "Get up and flee, lest you be burned by my coals." They said to him, "Whether for death or for life, we are with you, and we will not abandon you." What did he do? He wrapped himself in his tallit and stood in prayer before the Holy One, blessed be He, while his students sat occupied with Torah. He [Haman] said to them, "What are you occupied with?" They said to him, "With the mitzvah of the Omer that Israel used to offer in the Temple on this day." [He said to them], "This Omer — what is it made of, gold or silver?" They said to him, "Barley." He said to them, "And how much is it worth — twenty kantars or ten kantars?" They said, "Ten maneh suffice for it." He said to them, "[Arise,] for your ten [maneh] have defeated my ten thousand kantars of silver." The explanation of this matter is a wondrous and profound thing, and it is as we have explained: that this matter and this miracle occurred at a time when there were no [overt] miracles and wonders in the world, but rather the world conducted itself according to its natural custom (Avodah Zarah 54b), for in the time of the First Temple there were [overt] miracles and wonders in the world. Therefore it also says that the mitzvah of the Omer stood by them in the days of Gideon, for in his time as well no miracles were done for them, as Gideon said to the angel (Judges 6:13), "Is Hashem with us? Then why has all this befallen us, and where are all His wonders that our fathers told us of...?" — from which you see that there were no [overt] miracles in those days. Therefore the mitzvah of the Omer stood by them, for the Omer is brought to the Holy One, blessed be He, because He is the One who conducts nature, and nature does not [act] of itself, but rather He, may He be blessed, conducts nature. And thus they said in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 28:1-2): Rabbi Yannai said, "As is the way of the world, a person takes a litra (a pound) of meat from the market — how much labor, how much anguish he suffers until he cooks it! Yet people sleep on their beds, and the Holy One, blessed be He, brings back and raises up the clouds, and grows plants, and enriches the fruits, and they give Him nothing but the reward of the Omer." This is what is written (Leviticus 23:10), "And you shall bring the Omer of the first of your harvest to the priest." Rabbi Pinchas said: "As is the way of the world, a person launders his garment in the rainy season — how much labor he labors before it dries! Yet people sleep on their beds, and the Holy One, blessed be He, brings forth a little wind and dries the land." Behold, you see that the mitzvah of the Omer is because He, may He be blessed, conducts nature — He brings back the wind and grows plants. Therefore the bringing of the Omer is specifically from barley (Menachot 84a), for nature is material (chomri) in its essence, as is known, and therefore specifically barley is fitting for this, and no other matter. And when Haman wished to uproot Israel, he was not able to, because we bring the Omer, [by which] we accept Hashem, may He be blessed, as our God, [recognizing] that He conducts the natural world, for He is the Master of nature, and therefore we bring the Omer to Him. From this aspect it is fitting that the Holy One, blessed be He, should conduct His world so that Israel not be given over to slaughter, and that the custom of the world should remain intact — even though there is here no revealed miracle such as there was at the splitting of the Sea of Reeds and the other miracles. Therefore in this Megillah you will not find a holy Name that may not be erased, for in this natural conduct His great Name that renews miracles does not appear — it is mentioned only by hint. And all this is certainly because He, may He be blessed, conducts nature, even though a person may think that nature is merely a work of Hashem's making — [in truth] nature is an agent of the Holy One, blessed be He. And therefore the miracle of this redemption was entirely within nature, since He, may He be blessed, conducts nature, and through this He redeemed them. And this was on the sixteenth of Nissan, and the fast was on the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth days, and on the sixteenth day, which is the day of the bringing of the Omer (Menachot 66a), Haman was hanged. And therefore she said, "let him come today to the feast" (above 5:4), so that its meaning would not be [understood as] at night — since if she had asked only that he come to the feast [without saying "today"], it would have implied that he come to the feast at night, and therefore she needed to say "today," [i.e.] before nightfall. And even though presumably Esther too was at the feast with Ahasuerus while she was still in the midst of her fast, this is not a difficulty: [we may say] that they began the feast while it was still day, and she ate at night. Or we may say that Esther had accepted the fast only until Plag HaMincha (the "half-Mincha" hour, about an hour and a quarter before sunset) of the third day, and not until the stars came out. And we have already said above that there is a hint to this — for Esther said (above 4:16), "I and my maidens will also fast in this way" — why did she say "I will fast" [singular] and not say "we will fast"? Rather, she said that she would fast "in this way," namely for a count of seventy hours, for three days and three nights are seventy-two hours, and she advanced [the end of her fast] two hours early for the sake of this feast of Ahasuerus. And it would not be proper to say that she did not complete the fast, except that she said "I will fast in this way," namely seventy hours, for so she had accepted the fast from the outset. And she said (above 4:16), "and so I will go in to the king" — meaning: in the last two hours, which is from Plag HaMincha, the eleventh hour of the day — then she went to the king, for then she was confident that she would be answered, since that is the end of the day. And Rashi, of blessed memory, explained that the days of the fast were the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth. And Rashi was forced to explain it this way — that the fast was on the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth — because the letters were written on the thirteenth (above 3:12), and if so the fast could not have been on the thirteenth, and of necessity the fast was on the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth. And Rashi explained (Megillah 16a) that what is said (above 5:1), "and it was on the third day," does not mean the third day of the fast, but rather the third day from the sending of the letters. And the reason Scripture reckoned by the third day from the sending of the letters is because they had already been three days in distress — even though the fast began on the day after [the letters were sent] — nevertheless, on the thirteenth day the trouble became known to them, and so they were [reckoned as] three days in distress. Nevertheless, this is not a proof, for we may well say, as we have explained, that the fast was on the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth day. And we may say, according to Rashi's explanation, that even if Haman was hanged one day after the bringing of the Omer, there is no difficulty in this, for in any case the beginning of the redemption was on the day of the bringing of the Omer. For even though Haman's downfall was not yet known at the first feast, nevertheless the beginning of the redemption was at the first feast, for at the first feast the king said (above 5:3, 6), "What is your request, up to half the kingdom, and it shall be given to you" — and this was the beginning of the redemption. Therefore it is said, "your ten [maneh] have defeated my ten thousand kantars of silver." Only the wording that states, "that they offer on this day," implies that this took place on the day when the Omer is offered, and on the sixteenth Haman did not yet know anything of his downfall at all, since it was, according to his [Rashi's] explanation, the third day of the fast. Therefore one must say that the fast was on the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth day, and on the sixteenth he [Haman] was proclaiming before Mordechai, "So shall it be done to the man, etc.," and on that same day he said, "Your ten [maneh] have defeated my ten thousand kantars of silver," and on that same day he was hanged. And furthermore, one may say that in truth the fast was on the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth day, and there is no difficulty [in the objection] that the matter was not known to them until after the thirteenth — for one may say that it was certainly known to them before the thirteenth, since the decree was given before the thirteenth; it was only that the letters were sent out on the thirteenth. But the act itself, that Ahasuerus gave [authority] to destroy and to kill, was before the thirteenth. And as for what it says, that Mordechai showed the copy of the writ of the law that was given in Shushan (above 4:8) — certainly in Shushan it was [known] before the thirteenth; only the sending of the letters to all the king's provinces was on the thirteenth. And this is what it says (above 4:1), "and Mordechai knew all that was done" — namely, that Ahasuerus had given the Jews over to Haman; this is how it may be explained. However, the more essential [explanation] is the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1056), that it is therefore written (above 4:16), "three days," because they broke [the fast] while it was still day. And according to this, everything is according to its plain sense: the fast was on the thirteenth, the fourteenth day, and on the fifteenth she came before the king, and it is called "the third day" (above 5:1), because they broke [the fast] on the thirteenth day. And on the fifteenth day was the first feast, and on the sixteenth day the second feast, and on that same day Haman was hanged. And according to all opinions, Haman was hanged on the sixteenth day, which is the day of the bringing of the Omer (Menachot 66a), for the reason we stated above: that on this day, when the Omer is brought, Hashem, may He be blessed, conducts His world through nature and according to the world's own custom, as is fitting to be — and therefore He was guarding Israel, even though at that time there were no miracles and wonders, in that Hashem, may He be blessed, was not renewing for them miracles and wonders outside of nature, contrary to the world's custom. And therefore the Name that is unique in four letters [the Tetragrammaton, Hashem] is also called by the name of Lordship (Adnut) — for the explicit Name signifies miracles and wonders in the world, while the name Alef-Dalet [i.e., Adonai] signifies His conducting of the natural world, like a master (adon) who rules and conducts according to his own order. And therefore, alongside the name Alef-Dalet, it is always written "Master of all the earth" — thus it is written (Psalms 114:7), "Tremble, O earth, from before the Master (Adon)," (ibid. 8:10) "Hashem, our Master, how mighty is Your Name in all the earth" — for this Name, the name Alef-Dalet, through it He conducts nature. And because no revealed miracle was performed here, but everything was within the conduct of the world, therefore the unique Name is not mentioned in this Megillah. And even the name Alef-Dalet is not mentioned, for since everything was through nature, and the action of Hashem, may He be blessed, did not appear openly, therefore the Name was not written openly in the Megillah. However, in the introduction we explained another reason why the Name is not mentioned in this Megillah, and both are correct, and they are one and the same matter to one who understands; there is no need to elaborate. Therefore they, of blessed memory, said in the aforementioned Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 28:6): "Do not let the mitzvah of the Omer be light in your eyes, for it was in the merit of the Omer that Abraham inherited the land," as it is said (Genesis 17:9), "and you shall keep My covenant" — this is the covenant of the Omer. Now what does this have to do with the giving of the land? But the explanation is as we said above: the Omer is brought to Hashem, may He be blessed, because Hashem, may He be blessed, conducts the world according to the order in which He created it. And it was Abraham who accepted His Lordship (Adnut) and called Him "Adon" [Master], as is stated in the first chapter of Berachot (7b): until Abraham came, no one had called Him "Adon"; when Abraham came, he called Him "Adon," as it is said (Genesis 15:2), "My Lord, Hashem, what will You give me?" And the Master (Adon) is [called] "Master of the earth," and therefore the land was given to Abraham because he was the one who accepted His Lordship, may He be blessed. And because the conduct of the world is through the name "Adon" (Master), and Israel accepts His Lordship (Adnut) in that they bring the Omer to Hashem, may He be blessed, as we have said — for this is the significance of the bringing of the Omer. And a master does not allow his servant to be destroyed, and therefore He saved them, since they are servants to Him, for it is fitting for a master to guard his servants and save them from loss. Therefore it says that the mitzvah of the Omer is what saved them. And understand what it says (Vayikra Rabbah 28:6), "'and you shall keep My covenant' (Genesis 17:8) — this is the mitzvah of the Omer" — for the master and the servant are bound together, in that he is master over him, and the servant is a servant to him. Therefore it is fitting that he have compassion upon him, and that he be under his shelter. And you have yet to understand deep matters: that from the day of the bringing of the Omer, one counts fifty days until Atzeret [Shavuot] (Leviticus 23:15-16), and this fact was the cause of Israel's superiority, that they would prevail over Haman, who made himself into an idol and wished to reach the level of fifty, as has been explained above. And when Israel bring the Omer before the Holy One, blessed be He, they ascend up to fifty, for from it the Torah was given, from the fiftieth gate, as we have explained this in many places. And therefore one counts the counting from the first day of the Omer until the fiftieth, which is the day of the giving of the Torah, and from there they would prevail over the seed of Amalek, through Israel's attachment to Hashem by means of the Torah. For by the power of the beginning, which is the bringing of the Omer — and from it they begin to count fifty days — by this same power comes the end. And therefore, by the power of the first day of the Omer [comes] the fiftieth day of the giving of the Torah, from where they prevail over the power of Haman. And when you understand these matters, then you will understand many things that are said in this Megillah — why this redemption came about specifically through a woman, and several other matters as well.

Mordechai then returned. To his sackcloth, and to his fasting. — Notes: (4) Maseches Megillah 16a. This was the last day of Mordechai’s three day fast. (Sifsei Chachomim) Grief stricken, his head covered [in shame]. Our Rabbis explained this matter in Maseches Megillah. — Notes: (5) 16a; The Rabbis explained that Haman’s daughter mistook the horse rider as her father, and the man leading him as Mordechai. Unwittingly, she tossed the contents of a chamber pot on her father. When Haman looked up and she saw that it was her father, she fell off the roof and died. Therefore Haman was “grief stricken” on account of his daughter’s death, and “his head covered” by the chamber pot’s contents.

"hastened" (nidchaf) — of his own accord. And [as for] "mourning, and with head covered" (avel va-chafuy rosh) — [chafuy is] a passive form, meaning "his head covered." The proof is "and Haman's face was covered" (u-fnei Haman chafu) (7:8), which is from the same root as "va-yechapehu" ("and he covered it"), even though it is in a different grammatical construction (binyan).

"And Mordecai returned," etc. — Is this not difficult? For before this event Mordecai was not at the king's gate, so how can it say "he returned to the king's gate"? And similarly with what it says, "and Haman was pushed/hastened" (nidchaf) — for pushing can only be valid when it is done by another who pushed him. And furthermore, it says "mourning" (avel), yet that word is appropriate only for one who is mourning over his dead; and likewise it says "with his head covered" (chafuy rosh), which is the wrapping of the head as a mourner does. Now behold, our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said, concerning the verse "and he put on sackcloth and ashes" (Esther 4:1), that he [Mordecai] swore not to remove his sackcloth from upon himself until Israel would be redeemed. And behold, above it was stated that he did this because one may not come to the king's gate dressed in sackcloth, so that by this Israel would not place their reliance on him — [thinking] that he would go to the king's gate to speak to Esther — but rather they would cry out to the One Above in complete repentance (teshuvah sheleimah). And with this it may be said: when Mordecai saw what had befallen him through Haman, immediately "he returned to the king's gate" — that is to say, he removed his sackcloth from upon himself, meaning that the oath had already been released, for behold the redemption had now come. For behold, [Haman] had already fallen and been pushed from Heaven — and to where did they push him from Heaven? Why, to his own house, to the very gallows-tree that he had made in his house, for his thrust carried all the way to it; and not for himself alone, but also for his sons. And this is the meaning of "mourning, and with head covered" — over them [his sons], in the manner of mourners who mourn over their dead. And none of this was withheld from Mordecai's knowledge, for the spirit of Hashem spoke through him, as is known. Now behold, our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said that "and Mordecai returned" means that he returned to his sackcloth and his fasting. But is this not to be regarded as strange? For behold, one may not come to the king's gate dressed in sackcloth — so how could he have returned to his sackcloth at the king's gate? But behold, what we asked was difficult for them as well: since, before this event, he had not been coming to the king's gate, how could the language of "returning" be correct? Therefore they divided the verse: "and Mordecai returned" refers to his sackcloth and his fasting, only that this took place while he was at the king's gate — meaning that he was not wearing sackcloth over his garments in a manner that would violate the rule that one may not come to the king's gate so garbed, but rather beneath his garments, upon his flesh, on the inside. They were also led to this largely by way of the aggadic tradition (derekh aggadah), which expounds by means of a gezerah shavah (verbal analogy): namely, that it is stated here, "and Mordecai returned," and it is stated further on, "and Reuben returned to the pit" (Genesis 37:29) — just as there, [in the case of Reuben,] he was occupied with his sackcloth and his fasting, as the Rabbis, of blessed memory, said there — that this is why it was hidden from him when they sold the righteous one for silver (Amos 2:6) — so too, it is settled here, that this too refers to his sackcloth and his fasting.

"And [Mordecai] returned" — he relates how Mordecai returned to his greatness, and Haman descended into the pit of destruction, as if to say: behold the work of Hashem, how awesome it is; the thoughts of man are vanity, but the counsel of the One who brings about all causes stands forever.

"And Mordecai returned to the king's gate, etc." (verse 12). The meaning is that he returned to the king's gate, and did not come before the king. For by reason it would have been fitting to draw him near and to elevate him, and it would have been fitting for the king to send for Mordecai and say to him, "Because you did this thing, and told of Bigthan and Teresh, therefore I have done this greatness for you." Except that if so, Mordecai would say that he had been taken from the king's gate in order to be near the king. Therefore he told Haman to take Mordecai from the king's gate (above, verse 10), and of itself he would then return to the king's gate. From this Mordecai knew that the king did not want him to be near him, but only at the king's gate — for there he would sit and keep watch so that no one would come there to harm the king, as Bigthan and Teresh had done. Therefore Mordecai returned to the king's gate. And it is possible that Ahasuerus intended for Mordecai to sit at the king's gate, because even though Mordecai had done him all this good, nevertheless, since he had sold all the Jews to Haman, Mordecai too was included in this, and his decree had not yet been annulled regarding him. And everything that Ahasuerus did for Mordecai was not that he was annulling his decree, but rather he thought that perhaps Mordecai would join with Ahasuerus to become one nation, and therefore he drew him near to elevate him. And it is also possible that he did this so that Haman would not think that he [Haman] would be pushed away from Ahasuerus's house on account of Mordecai, and Haman would think of rebelling against the king. Therefore he left Mordecai as he had been before this, sitting at the king's gate. And in the Gemara (Megillah 16a) it explains what is meant by "And Mordecai returned to the king's gate," as will be explained shortly. And in the Gemara (Megillah 16a): Haman said [to Mordecai], "Get up, put on these garments and ride this horse, for the king wants you." He [Mordecai] said to him, "I cannot, until I go to the bathhouse and trim my hair, for it is not proper conduct to make use of royal garments in this state." Meanwhile Esther had sent word and closed off all the bathhouses and all the barbers. He [Haman] himself brought him into a bathhouse, and washed him, and went and brought a pair of scissors from his own house, and trimmed his hair. After he had trimmed it, he groaned and sighed. He [Mordecai] said to him, "Why are you sighing?" He said to him, "A man whom the king considered above all his officers has now become a bathhouse attendant and a barber!" He said to him, "Wicked one, were you not the barber of the village of Kartzum?" It was taught: Haman was a barber in the village of Kartzum for twenty-two years. After he had trimmed his hair, he dressed him. He said to him, "Get up and ride." He said to him, "I cannot, for my strength is weak from fasting." He [Haman] bent down, and he [Mordecai] rode upon him. As he was mounting, he [Mordecai] kicked him. He said to him, "Is it not written (Proverbs 24:17), 'When your enemy falls, do not rejoice'?" He said to him, "That applies to Israel, but concerning the nations of the world it is written (Deuteronomy 33:29), 'You shall tread upon their high places.'" "And proclaim before him: So shall be done to the man..." (above, verse 11) — as he [Haman] was leading him through the street of the city, his daughter saw him, and thought that the one riding was her father, and the one walking before him was Mordecai. She took a chamber pot from the outhouse and threw it down onto her father's head. He [Haman] raised his eyes and saw her; once she saw that it was her father, she fell from the roof and died. And this is what is meant by what is written, "And Mordecai returned to the king's gate" — Rav Sheshet said: he returned to his sackcloth and his fasting. "And Haman hurried to his house, mourning and with his head covered" — "mourning" over his daughter, and "with his head covered" on account of the thing that had happened to him. Thus far [the Gemara]. And the explanation of this matter: the verse says (verse 10), "Take the garment and the horse," and it should have mentioned the horse first, for a commoner is not permitted to ride upon a king's horse (Sanhedrin 22a). What is there to this matter, that it says "take the garment" — which is royal clothing — when even the mere donning of it is nothing [in itself], since it is [only] royal clothing? And since it is written "take the horse," and this matter is greater than "take the garment," why does it need to write this ["take the garment"] at all? Rather, "take the garment" is in fact even greater, because one may not wear royal garments unless one has first bathed, and if there are no attendants there, he himself must do this. And furthermore, because when the downfall reached Haman, certainly what reached him was that for which he was most fitted. And Haman was fitted for this, for he had been a barber in the village of Kartzum. And likewise what it says, "take the horse," brought upon him the debasement of bending down and being ridden upon — and this is because he was fitted to be a slave, for he had indeed been sold as a slave for a loaf of bread (Megillah 15b). And do not say that Haman's having been a barber in the village of Kartzum was mere happenstance — that is not so; rather, Haman was completely fitted for this. And you shall know this from what they said in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 63:8): "And the first came out red" (Genesis 25:25) — why did Esau come out first? So that he and his foulness would come out together. Rabbi Abbahu said: like an attendant who first scours out the bathhouse, and afterward bathes the king's son. So too Esau came out first, so that he and his foulness would come out together. And the explanation of this is that Esau clings to his foulness and to disgrace, and on account of this he takes upon himself all lowliness and disgrace, to the point that Jacob was a smooth man while Esau was a hairy man (Genesis 27:11), and this indicates disgrace and lowliness. And so too Amalek and his offspring were separate and distanced from all the creatures, and therefore he [Haman] became a barber in the village of Kartzum. For anything that is disgraceful is separate from everything else. And therefore we explained above regarding (above 3:6) "And it was contemptible in his eyes to lay a hand [on Mordecai alone], etc." — that Esau is contemptible and distanced, as Scripture says of him (Obadiah 1:2), "You are exceedingly despised." Just as Esau has an aspect toward the very greatest importance, so too he has an aspect toward disgrace and repulsiveness, and we have already explained this above; see there. Therefore, when the downfall was decreed upon him by Hashem, the greatest disgrace of all was decreed upon him. And this is what it says (Megillah 16a), that she [Esther] had closed off the bathhouses, until Haman came to be a bathhouse-attendant and a barber. And likewise this matter, that he served Mordecai like a slave, to the point that he bent down and was ridden upon. And even more than this, baseness clung to him, until excrement clung to him — and this matter is clear. And as to what it says, "that applies to Israel," etc. — the meaning is, as we have said in several places, that joy comes from the perfection that a person has. And when your enemies fall, one should not rejoice, for this is no perfection for him; on the contrary — since Israel are brothers, the perfection and greatness of one is also a certain perfection for the other, and likewise the downfall of one is also a loss for the other. Like two brothers: when one attains greatness and eminence, this is a certain perfection for the other as well. And a downfall that comes upon one — even though he is his [personal] enemy — nevertheless this is not a perfection for him [the other], for in the end they are brothers. But concerning the nations of the world one may rejoice, for they are not brothers [of Israel], and their downfall is a perfection for Israel, and therefore there is reason to rejoice. And as to what it says, "she took a chamber pot" (Megillah 16a) — one might object: even granting that she thought that the one riding was her father, and the one walking before him was Mordecai, still, perhaps it [the pot] might also have hit her father, for it is impossible to aim so precisely (Gittin 78a). And one may answer: Haman was walking far in front of him, proclaiming before him (verse 11), "So shall be done to the man whom the king desires to honor." But even without this there is no difficulty, since this downfall was decreed by Hashem upon Haman, this was brought about by Hashem — for his daughter did not consider this [possibility], even though she should not have done [what she did] in any case. And whatever was in any way possible was brought about, since Hashem decreed the downfall upon Haman, as his advisers said (verse 13), "since you have begun to fall." And if regarding Israel it is written (Deuteronomy 28:59), "And Hashem will make your plagues wondrous," then how much more so regarding the wicked one are his own blows wondrous. And you should know that this blow — that his daughter took a chamber pot and threw it onto her father's head — was not something that happened by chance; rather, it was necessitated according to the proper order. For thus were the things that happened to Haman: it was the beginning of his calamity in some [small] matter, and it kept increasing until it reached the ultimate downfall. And so it is fitting that it should be, for a thing that is at the ultimate point of downfall cannot be reached immediately at first, but only if it arrives at this by a process that keeps increasing. And Haman arrived at this — that he was hanged on a tree of fifty [cubits] (below 7:10), which is the utter disgrace, as was explained above, and will be explained further. Therefore he could not reach this unless he first had some partial disgrace. Therefore this happening came to him — that his daughter took a chamber pot and threw it onto Haman's head — and through this came upon him "mourning and covered head": "mourning" is as though he had his soul taken from him, for his daughter is an extension of his own soul (lit. "the leg of his soul"), and when his daughter, who was the extension of her father, died, this is counted as a certain nullification of his soul. And "covered head" — this is the nullification of the image of the face, which is the eminence of a person, as was explained above, that this is why his advisers counseled to hang him: in order to nullify the divine image that a person has. And therefore this matter, of her taking the chamber pot and throwing it on his head, was the beginning, and afterward it reached its culmination, when he was hanged on the tree of fifty [cubits] (below 7:10), and through this there was a complete nullification of the image, as we said — and this is why the Torah said (Deuteronomy 21:23), "You shall not leave his corpse overnight on the tree." And the taking of the soul also began when his daughter died, and in the end there was a complete nullification of these two things, namely the taking of his life, and the complete nullification of his image. And this was unlike other hanged people, for other hanged people, even though they are hanged, their disgrace is not seen so much as one who is hanged on a tree of fifty [cubits], such that his disgrace is visible to all — and this is the ultimate disgrace. And more than this, according to the explanation we have given: that he was hanged on a tree of fifty [cubits] in order to indicate the complete destruction and the absolute removal that came upon him, in order to fulfill (Deuteronomy 25:19), "You shall blot out the memory of Amalek." And it is not for nothing that it wrote the term "blot out" (timcheh) — rather, it indicates the absolute nullification and the complete destruction, and to erase his image, for the term "erasure" applies to an image — and this suffices. And therefore there is no wonder at all in everything that was done, for even though it seems that these are things very far-fetched, since this is how it had to be according to the decree that Hashem decreed, everything came about. And there is yet more wisdom in this matter, and there is no room to elaborate further here, and it is explained elsewhere. "And Haman hurried to his house." The meaning is that there were many people there, so that this matter was a disgrace and humiliation to him, and therefore Haman hurried to his house with the greatest speed. And it also comes to tell that all this was done quickly, in that he hurried to his house.

Since you have begun to fall, etc. She said, “This nation has been compared to the stars and to the dust. When they descend, they descend to the dust, and when they ascend, they ascend up to the sky and the stars.” — Notes: (6) Maseches Megillah 15a. Zeresh and Haman’s advisers forewarned Haman that Mordechai’s rise to honor signified the beginning of the rise of the Jews and of Haman’s downfall.

"And his wise men and Zeresh his wife said to him" — When calamity comes upon the wicked person, his friends do not prophesy good things about him.

"And Haman recounted," etc. — One should pay attention to the statement, "If he is of the seed of the Jews, etc." For behold, aside from the fact that this was well known — since even Haman himself, whenever he spoke to them, would always say, "at every time that I see Mordecai the Jew" — if so, how could they have been in doubt? Moreover, instead of comforting him, they were actually paining him under the guise of comfort (tza'arei ka metza'arei leih). Furthermore, from the wording of the verse it appears that there are two possibilities: "if he is of the seed of the Jews, you shall not prevail," and, by implication, "if not, you shall prevail" — if so, why did they omit the second option, especially since it is the main point, and it is the one that ought to have been said in order to comfort him? Furthermore, after saying "you have begun to fall before him," and "you shall surely fall before him," how can they then say "you shall not prevail against him" — for it goes without saying (an a fortiori, lit. "included in the two hundred maneh") that if he is already falling before him, certainly he cannot prevail against him. Furthermore, the words "ki nafol tipol" ("for you shall surely fall") are superfluous, and it should have said simply "ki tipol lefanav" ("for you shall fall before him"). Furthermore, as to the statement "while they were still speaking, etc." — one must ask: how is it that the king's chamberlains came and hastened to bring Haman, and what is gained by informing us that they were still speaking with him? And likewise the word "vayavhilu" ("and they hastened") does not seem necessary to state. Now, in the Gemara it is asked: it should have said "his friends"! Yet the verse says, "and his wise men said to him." Rabbi Yochanan said: since they said something wise, the verse calls them wise even though they are idolaters. And one ought to know what their wisdom consisted of. I think that all their affairs proceeded according to the science of astrology, and by their wisdom they perceived what would happen to him through the seed of Benjamin — as is known from the words of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, that the entire downfall of Amalek comes about through the descendants of Rachel, as it is written, "if the young of the flock do not drag them away" (Jeremiah 49:20). And according to our approach it can be resolved why he mentioned his wife before his friends, saying, "And Haman recounted to Zeresh his wife and to all his friends" — and afterward it reverses the order and says, "his wise men and Zeresh his wife": he recounted to his friends what had happened to him so that they would comfort him, and he put his wife first in the telling because she would love him more than they; but in their reply, which proceeded according to wisdom, he put them first, since they were wiser than she. And this is understood by paying attention to the phrase "all that had befallen him" — what does the word "all" add? Now, he saw this and was astounded: for behold, he had acquired complete ownership over all the Jews, among whom was included also Mordecai — since it appeared that his own star had subdued all the Jews beneath him — so how had it now turned around for him, that he should fall beneath a man who was his own purchased property? This is the meaning of "all that had befallen him": that it includes also the fact that he [Mordecai] was among those he had acquired as his own, together with the incident that had now happened to him. Therefore his wise men answered him, saying, in their wisdom: Behold, among the Jews there are many tribes and ancestral houses; and if Mordecai, of that seed before which you have already begun to fall, is of the seed of the Jews — namely, the seed of King Saul — know that your mazal cannot turn back and conquer them, nor those whom you have already acquired in order to destroy, etc., even though it has been written and sealed with the king's ring so that it cannot be revoked: you shall not prevail against that seed, even though you would be able to prevail against all the rest, for that seed's hand is ever powerful over you — since you shall also surely fall (nafol tipol) before the aforementioned seed, the seed of Saul; and these are two falls. The first is before Esther, who is also of the seed of Saul, before whom he had begun to fall — and this first fall is that he will be hanged through her; and the second is that she will afterward command that his sons be hanged in his place. And on account of all this wisdom of theirs, the verse calls them "his wise men." Now, according to this wisdom of theirs, in just a little more they would have gone on to explain to him how these falls would come about and through whom, so that he would know that Esther had laid traps for him at the banquet she made for him. And if so, it would have been possible for him to go at once to the king and offer an excuse for the matter, saying that he had not known that Esther was of the seed of the Jews, and that it was not she whom he had intended to acquire for destruction; and the king, too, would have believed him, since Esther had not yet told of her people — so that when the queen's word came to the king, saying, "for we are sold, I and my people, etc.," the king would not have been angry at Haman. Therefore God arranged that "while they were still speaking with him" — before they could finish their words and reveal the matter of his downfall through Esther — the king's chamberlains arrived and hastened, etc., and did not allow them to finish their statement; for otherwise they would have told him the whole matter. Alternatively, one may explain "while they were still speaking, etc." as follows: he had begun, as it were, to complain about his friends and Zeresh his wife, who had advised him to make a gallows-tree and to go early in the morning to tell the king to hang Mordecai — for from this came upon him that evil incident, when the king asked him what should be done, from which it followed that he answered, "let royal apparel be brought, etc.," and the king said to him, "make haste, take, etc.," so that he was disgraced in the eyes of all who saw him. And this is the meaning of "And Haman recounted to Zeresh, etc., all that had befallen him" — that is to say, it was an inauspicious incident that had happened to him, in that he had come to the king at that evil hour. Therefore they answered and said, "if he is of the seed, etc." — meaning: let it not enter your mind that it was mere chance that happened to you, for know that if Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall, is of the seed of the Jews — namely, the seed of Saul — you shall not prevail against him, even had you not gone to the king at that time; for it was not chance, but rather that his hand is powerful over you from Heaven. And behold, in order to comfort him, their intention was to conclude and say: but if he is not of that seed, do not fear, for he shall be considered a stranger to them — that is, they meant to ask whether there was, in the exile of Judah, a man of Benjamin who was of the seed of Saul, and whether this Mordecai the Jew was he — but while they were still speaking with him, the king's chamberlains arrived and gave him no respite, not even time enough to swallow his own spittle; this is the meaning of "vayavhilu," etc. — and they did not manage to finish comforting him. "While they were still speaking, etc." — Aside from the above, the verse teaches us how he had already fallen from Heaven, and that "there is no dominion on the day of death" (Ecclesiastes 8:8), for his day had come. And this is shown by the fact that it does not say that they came "to summon" Haman, but rather "to bring" him — as though his own will and his greatness were already annulled.

Questions: One must ask why he told this to the members of his household — surely such bad news is better concealed than publicized. And the expression "that had befallen him," as though it were mere chance, is not understood. And it is puzzling what is meant by what is stated, "you shall surely fall," and why he called them his wise men — for this is folly, to instill faintheartedness and fear into one's own heart. "And [Haman] recounted" — the MaHaRA"A explains that Haman was concerned that the members of his household, upon hearing what had happened, would be terrified and afraid lest Haman had asked the king to hang Mordecai, and that through the argument and inquiry it had become known to the king that he had spoken falsely against him, and that this verdict had come about as a result — in which case there would be no remedy for his wound. Therefore he came to tell them good news: that this was merely a chance occurrence, and that he had not yet made his actual request, and there was still hope that afterward he would ask to hang him, and the king would grant his request, since Mordecai had already received his reward. However, his wise men and advisers counseled him for his own good not to provoke Mordecai any further and not to seek his life, for he would not succeed — so far his words. And he also relates that, in response to Haman's statement in which he had regarded this as mere chance, these wise advisers informed him that if Mordecai is of the seed of the Jews — who are the people over whom Hashem's particular providence hovers — then he should know that the matter was not chance at all, but by the providence of their holy God. And since "you have begun to fall before him," which indicates that Hashem desires them and has set His eye upon them for good, you will not be able to prevail against him any longer. And as proof, they said "before whom you have begun to fall" — by this they intended two things. First: that "you have begun to fall" — that you were the one who initiated this fall, without anyone else exerting any effort in the matter; rather, you yourself were the initiator and the cause, in that you rose early to the king's gate and devised this plan. Second: that "you have begun to fall before him" — meaning that he has not yet fallen, but rather you fell before him; and this is indicated by the word "before him" (lefanav), that is, before his own fall. And this is a sign that it came about through providence, by virtue of his prayer and fasting, with which he is now occupied. And therefore you will not prevail against him except if "you shall surely fall before him" — that is to say, only in this manner could you prevail over him: if you fall and humble yourself before him, until his mind grows haughty and he ceases from his prayer and repentance — then your hand would prevail to achieve success. But so long as you fight against him, so will he raise his hand in prayer; and it shall be, when Mordecai raises his hand, Israel shall prevail.

"And Haman recounted to Zeresh his wife [and to all his friends], etc." (verse 13). Here it places "Zeresh" before "his friends," saying "to Zeresh his wife and to all his friends." But above it places "his friends" before "Zeresh," as it is written (5:10), "and he sent and brought his friends and Zeresh his wife." This is because above, "his friends," who were outside his house, needed to be brought into his house, but his wife was [already] in his house — except that his wife was not in his [particular] room with Haman, and she came from room to room, and for this reason it would not have been necessary to write "and he brought [her]." Rather, because his friends, who were outside his house, needed to be brought to his house, for this reason it juxtaposed "his friends" to "and he brought." And since it wrote "and he brought" on account of his friends, it applies also to Zeresh, who was brought from room to room. But on account of Zeresh alone it would not have written "and he brought"; therefore it placed "his friends" before "Zeresh." "And Haman recounted to Zeresh his wife and to all his friends" what had happened to him, and they answered him, "If [he is] of the seed of the Jews, etc." And all this comes to tell of the swiftness of this redemption, as it is likewise written (verse 14), "While they were yet talking with him, they hastened to bring Haman" — for the fact that this redemption came about with such great swiftness is itself a great matter, as was explained earlier regarding (above, 5:14) "and in the morning speak to the king." "And his wise men and Zeresh his wife said to him, etc." Here it places the wise men before Zeresh his wife, whereas above (5:14) it places Zeresh before his friends. This is because earlier, the advice they gave was a matter of intellect alone, and it was not a matter of divine intellect. And regarding such a matter, the woman takes precedence, as we say in the chapter "HaZahav" (Bava Metzia 59a): "Your wife is short — bend down and whisper to her" — and this is established, according to the latter version, specifically with regard to worldly matters, but not with regard to heavenly matters. And the explanation of this is: with regard to a matter that is intellectual, women have good sense, but not with regard to heavenly matters, for heavenly matters require divine intellect, and this does not pertain so much to women, since the woman inclines toward the material. Therefore, with regard to this — where they gave him advice as to what to do about Mordecai — the woman takes precedence, since this matter is not divine intellect; they see what is nearer [at hand]. But that matter which they said, "since you have begun to fall, etc.," is a matter of divine intellect entirely, to know the power of Israel, and there it places "his wise men" first and the wife afterward. The general principle is: whatever is a matter of divine intellect, the man takes precedence over the woman in wisdom. But a matter that is merely advice as to what to do against an enemy — in this the woman's intellect takes precedence, as they said (Bava Metzia 59a), "your wife is short, bend down and whisper to her." Furthermore, in a matter that is for the man's benefit, she would be the one to speak first, since the woman is entirely like his own body (Berakhot 24a). But a matter that is against the man, like this thing they said, "since you have begun to fall, etc.," she would not be the one to speak first. "If [he is] of the seed of the Jews, etc." Even though he certainly knew that he [Mordecai] was a Jew, since he had said (above, 5:13), "every time that I see Mordecai the Jew, etc." One may explain that they thought that perhaps he was not of their seed but merely called "a Jew," for everyone who was exiled with Jeconiah is called by the name "Jew," and perhaps he was a convert and not of their seed. Therefore he said, "if [he is] of the seed of the Jews." And he did not say instead, "if [he is] from among the Jews," for even a convert is called "from among the Jews." And in the Gemara (Megillah 16a): "'If Mordecai is of the seed of the Jews' — they said to him: if he comes from the rest of the tribes of Israel, you can prevail over him; but if he comes from the tribe of Judah, Manasseh, Ephraim, or Benjamin, you cannot prevail over him. Judah, as it is written (Genesis 49:8), 'your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies.' The tribe of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh, as it is written (Psalms 80:3), 'Before Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh, stir up Your might and come to save us.'" "'For you shall surely fall before him'" — Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai expounded: why two fallings? This teaches that they said to him: this nation is likened to dust and is likened to the stars; when they descend, they descend to the dust, and when they ascend, they ascend to the heavens. And according to this explanation, "if [he is] of the seed of the Jews" means: if he is of the essential core of the Jews — and these three tribes, Judah, Joseph, and Benjamin, are the essential core. This is because the Divine Presence rested in the portion of these tribes: in Judah's portion was Jerusalem (Yoma 12a); in Joseph's portion was the Tabernacle of Shiloh (Megillah 16b); and in Benjamin's portion was the altar. We have already explained this above as well. And because the Divine Presence is bound to them more than to the others, Hashem has an attachment to them, and Hashem is with them to be victorious over the enemy, and particularly to prevail over Haman — for through these tribes Israel becomes one. For through the Temple Israel is one, and the [outlying] altars were forbidden, and they had one altar. Thus you find that Moses said to the assembly of Korach, "take for yourselves fire-pans, etc." (Numbers 16:6), meaning to say: we have one God, etc., and therefore we have one altar and one priest, etc., as is explained in its place. And likewise in Shiloh the [outlying] altars were forbidden (Zevachim 112b). Not so when the Tabernacle was in Gilgal, in Nob, and in Gibeon, where the [outlying] altars were not forbidden (ibid.), and Israel were, as it were, divided when the [outlying] altars were permitted. But in the Temple and in Shiloh, which were in the portion of these three tribes, the [outlying] altars were forbidden (ibid.), and through this Israel became one. Therefore these three tribes prevail over Amalek, who negates unity — for Hashem's Name is not [whole and] one until the seed of Amalek is cut off (Rashi, Exodus 17:16), from which you see that Amalek negates the unity of Hashem. And through these three tribes Israel is one nation, and this demonstrates that they have one God. And through the power of Hashem, who is one, the power of Amalek, which stands opposed to this, is negated. These matters are clear and profound. And this is alluded to in the term "Yehudi" [Jew], which is related to the word "yechidi" [singular, unique one]; and so they said in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 6:2): "and because he unified the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, he is called 'Yehudi,' meaning 'yechidi.'" End [of citation]. Therefore he said, "if [he is] of the seed of the Jews," meaning that he is of the seed of Jews through whom the unity of the Holy One, blessed be He, is made manifest. And as for what they said in the Gemara (Megillah 16a), that this nation is likened to dust and to stars — the explanation of this is that "you shall surely fall" [nafol tipol] implies a total falling, after which there is no [further] falling. And this is because there is no nation like Israel, for Hashem is their ultimate form, as was explained above. And if Israel do not do the will of the Omnipresent, Hashem withdraws from them — He who is a transcendent form to them — and then they fall completely. And we have already said that the name "Yisrael" indicates this, for "El" is the true reality of their form. And when Hashem withdraws His glory from them, it is as though there is an abolition of their name, and the very essence of their form is nullified, and then they fall completely. And when they ascend, they ascend to the heavens, for they are attached to Him, blessed be He, as is indicated by the name "El" that is in their name. And so our Rabbis of blessed memory said (Genesis Rabbah 8:12) regarding man, "and let them have dominion [veyirdu] over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heaven" (Genesis 1:26): if he merits, it is written "and let them have dominion [veyirdu] over the fish of the sea"; if he does not merit, he goes down [yored] before them. And so is the law of Israel, for they are called "Adam" [man], while the [other] nations are not called "Adam" (Yevamot 61a). All this is because the complete form, if it is not in its completeness as is fitting for it, is then as though entirely nullified, and everything rules over it, even beast, animal, and bird. But when it is in its completeness as is fitting, it certainly rules over everything. But only when it is not found in its completeness, then it is as though it has no existence at all, and then it descends to the dust, like a thing that is not considered to have existence at all. And this matter, too, is explained in several places. And as for what he said — that these two fallings are because this nation is likened to the stars and to the dust of the earth — the explanation of this is that the doubling of "falling" [nafol tipol] would [otherwise] be simply a redundancy of language. And he said that because this nation is likened to the stars and to the dust of the earth, therefore these are two fallings. For if there were only one falling, it would imply only that this nation is like the other nations, and when they do not do the will of Hashem, then it falls to the depths of the earth. Or [alternatively,] that they are like the stars, and when they do not do the will of Hashem they fall until they are equal to the other nations, and have no extra stature at all. Therefore there are here two fallings: the one falling, that they fall from the highest stature until they are like the other nations; and the second falling, to the depths of the dust. And for this reason they said to Haman that you will fall completely, [and] Israel will be considered like the stars of heaven. But if he does not fall completely, and Israel is considered like the stars of heaven while you are considered like the other nations, this is [only] one falling. But since Israel has two levels, it must be that they are above like the stars of heaven, while you are abased to the earth.

Questions: Why does it relate that the king's chamberlains arrived while they were still speaking? "While they were still" — this too was by providence, that the chamberlains arrived in the middle of the argument and heard what was being said between them: that Haman said he still wished to make an effort with the king to hang him, and they advised him not to fight against him. And from this, Harvonah — who was one of these chamberlains — knew that it was Haman who had made the gallows. (MaHaRA"A)

"While they were still talking" etc. (verse 14). Why was it necessary to say "while they were still talking," and also "and they hastened," when it would have sufficed to write only "and they brought Haman to the banquet"? [The reason is] that anything which comes from Hashem, and is not from the ordinary governance of the world, is not drawn out over time — for all the governance of the world operates within time, but a thing that comes from Hashem, once it begins to emerge into actuality, emerges with the greatest speed. For a coming-into-being of this kind, one that is from Hashem, is not subject to time. And [Scripture] wrote the matter this way because through this it is revealed that this was the act of Hashem — only that it was not an openly revealed miracle. And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1058) it is said that Esther sought to hasten Haman and bring him quickly, because Haman's sons were [dispersed] throughout the whole province, lest Haman write to them and they rebel against the king; therefore Esther acted with speed — so says the Midrash.