Esther · Chapter 8

How he was related to her. How he was related to her.

"what he was to her" (mah hu lah) — that he was her uncle.

"On that day," etc. — It is fitting to consider what is meant by saying "on that day," when it would have been more fitting simply to say, "and the king gave Esther the house of Haman." Further, what did the house of Haman give her, and what did it add for her — was she lacking houses? What more did she need, seeing she was already queen? Further, during Haman's lifetime Scripture did not call him "the Jews' enemy," yet now, after his death, it calls the house of Haman "the Jews' enemy." Also, what is the point of the ring that was given to Mordecai, and also, why did [the verse] need to inform us that it was the one taken from Haman? And what was Esther's purpose in setting Mordecai over the house of Haman? Now, we wrote at the end of the previous verse that "the king's wrath was assuaged" — but not the wrath of the King of the universe, nor the wrath of Mordecai and Esther over the distress of Israel; for they had not yet been cleared of the writ that had been written in the king's name, etc., "to destroy, to slay," etc., which cannot be revoked, until, from the place of His dwelling, He, may He be blessed, would take note to reverse the letters embodying Haman's plan — for even the king still held to his decree, according to "the law of Media and Persia," which is not to be altered, and he had not changed his mind until "Esther spoke again before the king, and fell at his feet, and wept, and besought him." And the whole of the king's intent, on the day they hanged Haman, was only to save Esther by way of a reversal of the decree in her case alone — since a wholesale reversal would have been against the law of the kingdom — so that she alone would be rescued from the decree in its entirety. This is [the meaning of] "on that day the king Ahasuerus gave Esther the queen the house of Haman": to say that, indeed, insofar as she was Esther the queen, there was no need to give her anything at all, since, being queen, everything was already hers — what use would she have for the house of Haman? But inasmuch as it was on that particular day — the day of Haman's hanging, which cast the dread of the Jews upon their enemies — he went further and gave her his house as well. And why did he do so? Because he was still "the Jews' enemy" — it does not say "who had been the enemy of the Jews," to indicate that even after he was hanged he remained the Jews' enemy: he himself had perished, but his decree still stood "according to the law of Media," for any writ written and sealed with the king's ring cannot be revoked. Therefore, to indicate that she was not caught up within the distress of the decree, he gave her the house of Haman — meaning, on the contrary, she would inherit it, for she had been mistress over him [as queen], and had not been included in the sale [of the Jews]. Likewise, the fact that Mordecai came before the king was not because Haman's decree against the Jews had been annulled — for if it had been, why would he need to come before the king at all? Rather, Mordecai the Jew was still included within the decree, and his coming before the king was solely because Esther had told the king what he was to her. Only afterward did "the king remove his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and give it to Mordecai" — so that the wicked would not lay hands on Mordecai, saying, "King Ahasuerus has transferred Haman's authority to Mordecai, and the very ring by which he sold the Jews to Haman has now been given to Mordecai" — this was done solely to indicate that the king had reversed himself regarding Mordecai, having vindicated him. But this had not yet become publicly known; therefore, "Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman," so that it would be openly publicized to all the people found in Shushan that Mordecai was great in the eyes of the king, and that the one who had given Haman dominion over all the Jews — Mordecai included — now had the matter reversed: Mordecai would rule over the house of Haman. It is further possible that Esther's intent in setting Mordecai over the house of Haman was to save the Jews who were in Shushan, as mentioned above. For in every single city and province, the decree had not been made public — [the people] were only being made ready for that appointed day, but were not [yet] to be destroyed, since [the details] came only in letters that reached the governors of the provinces in secret, until the appointed day. But in Shushan, the decree to destroy them had been given openly, for the reason stated above. Therefore, so that "the dread of God" would fall upon all the gentiles who were in Shushan, she made the matter public by placing Mordecai over the house of Haman, in order to instill faintheartedness in their hearts so that they would not rise up — all the more so in light of what our Sages, of blessed memory, said regarding "and the city of Shushan was perplexed": that from the time of the decree, [the gentiles] had risen up against the Jews of Shushan, saying to them, "Tomorrow we will strangle you and take your money." Now, regarding what our Sages, of blessed memory, said about "and if I perish, I perish" — that Esther meant: "as I have perished, I have perished to you" — for until now I was as one compelled, but from now on I act willingly. This is because, at first, she would rise from Ahasuerus's lap, immerse, and [then] sit in Mordecai's lap; but from the time she went to the king [this time], she became forbidden to him, for she was now regarded as one who went willingly rather than as one compelled. In light of this, what Esther told the king — "what he was to her" — means what he was to her now: that he was nothing to her now but her uncle, and not what he had been to her originally, when he had been her husband. And in the Gemara, Rabbi Abba bar Kahana opened this exposition for this portion from here: "To the man who is good before Him, He has given wisdom, knowledge, and joy" — this is Mordecai the righteous; "but to the sinner He has given the task of gathering and amassing" — this is Haman — "so as to give it to the one who is good before God" — this is Mordecai and Esther, as it is written, "and Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman." [Thus far the Gemara.] It is fitting to consider why he chose to expound this verse in reference to Mordecai and Haman. Further, the joy was for all the Jews, not for Mordecai alone. Further, Mordecai also possessed understanding — why then does [the verse] mention only wisdom and knowledge? Further, why does he explain "to the man who is good before Him" as referring to Mordecai, and then explain "to give to the one who is good before God" as referring to Mordecai and Esther together? Now, what troubled him in the verse was this: how can it say that to whoever is good before Him, He gives wisdom, knowledge, and joy — are there not many who are good before Him, may He be blessed, to whom joy is not given, and many who are not good, yet who have joy, knowledge, and wisdom? Further, joy is not of the same category as knowledge and wisdom, and it would have been more fitting to say "wisdom, knowledge, and understanding." Further, how many sinners do not gather and amass wealth at all, and even if they do gather it, it is not [necessarily] given to the one who is good before God? Therefore he determined that [the verse] speaks specifically of Mordecai and Haman. For to this one [Mordecai], wisdom was given to understand the counsel of Bigthan and Teresh, through his knowledge of the seventy languages; and afterward, knowledge was given to him — namely, that Mordecai knew all that was being done — in keeping with what our Sages, of blessed memory, said: that through Elijah he knew what was being done in the heavens, and that Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, sent to him that he should pray and rectify the matter, which is accomplished through repentance. And through this, joy was granted to him ahead of all Israel, when they mounted him through the city square and proclaimed before him, "So shall it be done to the man," etc. And Haman gathered great wealth — all the more so in light of what our Sages, of blessed memory, said, that he found the treasures of Nebuchadnezzar — and all of it was, in the end, "to give to the one who is good before God," namely, that King Ahasuerus gave the house of Haman, etc. Now, what troubled him was necessarily one of two possibilities: either Mordecai was already worthy of that honor with which he was honored, when they mounted him through the city square and proclaimed before him, "So shall it be done to the man," etc.; or he was not yet worthy, until merit was added afterward. If he was worthy from the outset, why did He, may He be blessed, not bring it about — from the moment the matter of Bigthan and Teresh became known — that Mordecai's role be investigated and discovered, so that his reward would be paid then and that honor bestowed at once? This would have been good for Israel, since Haman would not then have dared afterward to set his heart on slandering Israel and having it decreed against them "to destroy, to slay, and to annihilate," for the fear of Mordecai would have fallen upon him. Indeed, even as it stood, Haman did not set his mind on destroying the Jews except out of anger at Mordecai for not bowing or prostrating himself — which is why "it seemed contemptible to him to lay a hand on Mordecai alone," etc. And if that honor was not yet fitting for Mordecai, then it should not have been given to him even at that point either, but only once the redemption of all Israel together had come, when "the Jews had light and joy" — he too would rejoice together with them, and not before. Therefore [the Gemara] says that "to the one who is good before Him, He gave wisdom" to understand the counsel of Bigthan and Teresh, and from that point on he was worthy of all that honor. This is [the meaning of] "Mordecai the righteous": by his righteousness he was indeed worthy of it, but there were two impediments. The first: that had it been given immediately, Haman would not have oppressed Israel, and their sin would have remained bound upon their shoulders, unrefined and unrectified. Therefore He, may He be blessed, first gave him knowledge, that he should know what was being done, and go out into the city square crying out, bringing Israel back to repentance; and only then did He give him joy ahead of Israel, after he had rectified their crookedness, refining their sin through the fasts [undertaken] over the distress caused by Haman, to refine their guilt. And there is a second argument: "but to the sinner He gave," etc. — for had honor and greatness been conferred upon Mordecai from the outset, it would never have come about that all of Haman's amassed wealth would fall into the hands of Mordecai and Esther. And afterward it says "Mordecai and Esther," not Mordecai alone. This is because, above, when it said "to the one who is good before Him," it referred to Mordecai; and now [Rabbi Abba] was troubled: if, in saying "to give to the one who is good before God," this too refers to Mordecai — the same one alluded to by "to the one who is good before Him" — why the elaboration? It should simply have said "to give to him," since it is understood that it speaks of the same "one who is good before Him" mentioned earlier. Rather, it is because, above, no giver is named except Esther — she is the one who gave it to him. Therefore [the verse] returned and said "to the one who is good before God," so as to include Esther as well — for she was good and righteous before God, though not before man, since people could not help but assume that she went to Ahasuerus willingly, by choice, [without regard to the fact] that she was endangering herself for the sake of her people. It is further possible that Rabbi Abba came to teach a lesson about the way of the world, lest it arise in a person's heart to think that the goods and honors of this world depend on the wisdom of their possessor, or on effort — for none of this holds true apart from His will and providence, may He be blessed. This is [the meaning of] "to the one who is good before Him, He gave wisdom": that everything comes from Him, may He be blessed. For behold, to the one who is good before Him, may He be blessed, He gave wisdom — that is, Mordecai — to understand [the plot of] Bigthan and Teresh; and if honor and greatness are attained through wisdom, why was honor and greatness not granted to him immediately through his wisdom? Rather, his wisdom alone did not suffice for him, until Hashem, may He be blessed, also gave him knowledge, that he should know all that was being done, and bring Israel back to repentance; and only afterward, joy — which is the honor and greatness. It was not granted to him from the moment he attained wisdom, to teach that wisdom is not the essential thing, and effort is not the essential thing either — for behold, "but to the sinner He gives [the task] to gather and amass," etc. This is like what happened to two disputants, one of whom said that success depends on effort, while the other said that everything comes from Heaven. The first climbed to the top of a tree and picked the season's first ripe fig, and brought it in his hand, saying to his companion, "See, everything depends on effort — for I toiled and made the effort to pick this first fig, and now I will eat it. Not so you, who merely sat in your place." While he was still speaking with him, the fig fell from his hand; his companion came, took it, and ate it, and said, "Behold, effort avails nothing — for you made the effort, and I ate it." So it is in this matter: Haman set his eyes on gathering and amassing, and Mordecai and Esther ate [what he had amassed]. This is what Scripture means: "but to the sinner He gives [the task] to gather and amass" — this is Haman — "to give to the one who is good before God" — this is Mordecai and Esther. Now, from the substance of Rabbi Abba's words, of blessed memory, we learn that when it says, "the king gave Esther the house of Haman," and when it says, "Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman," it speaks not only of acquiring the physical houses, but also of all the wealth that Haman had gathered and amassed. In light of this, it is possible, according to the sense of the phrase "on that day he gave," etc., to say that it should not enter our minds that what the king gave Esther was on account of her having saved his life from death through [her report of] Bigthan and Teresh — for at that time he did nothing for her, since he thought that Haman deserved all the honor, for it was he who had brought about Esther's being taken to the king, and she had spoken to the king in Mordecai's name and saved his life from death; therefore the king promoted Haman after those events, as mentioned above — yet nothing was done for Esther, for the king reasoned, "What honor and greatness could be conferred on Esther beyond her already being queen?" But now, once Harbonah said that, on the contrary, it was because Mordecai had spoken well on the king's behalf that Haman had built the gallows [meant] for him at his own house, [the king] then said, "If so, then just as I promoted Haman, so let it be done for Esther — I will give her his house." And likewise regarding Mordecai, who had spoken well on the king's behalf — she brought him before the king, and the king removed his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to him, on the principle that the one who had desired the king's life [i.e., wished him to live] should inherit from the one who had sought his death. But this is not so. Rather, the fact that "on that day the king gave Esther the house of Haman" was solely because Haman was "the Jews' enemy," and it was distressing to the king that Haman had laid his hand on the Jews; and to indicate this, he gave all of Haman's house and wealth to Esther — meaning, that had Haman been hanged only for a matter concerning the king personally, his property would have gone to the king, as with all those executed by the crown, whose property reverts to the crown. But on that day the king departed from that practice and gave Esther the house of Haman, to indicate that he had put Haman to death for a matter concerning her — namely, that he was the enemy of the Jews, among whom Esther was included; therefore what had been his should now become hers. And likewise, Mordecai's coming before the king was not because he had spoken well on the king's behalf, but rather because Esther had told the king what he was to her; and for her sake, "the king removed [his ring]," etc., in order to save Mordecai from those who sought the lives of Israel and still clung to the letters of wrath written against the Jews to destroy them. And then, "Esther set," etc., as discussed above.

The questions: Why did he give Haman's house to Esther? And what is the significance in the fact that Mordecai came before the king — for there is nothing so great in this, since any person could come [before the king] when necessary? And why is Haman here called "the enemy of the Jews"? "On that day" — it had already been the law from ancient times that the property of those executed by the king [belongs] to the king; and had Haman been killed for having rebelled against the king, his house and property would have gone to the king. But the king wanted to show that he was not hanged for rebelling against the king, but rather for having rebelled against the queen and her people the Jews; therefore he gave Haman's house to Esther, for since he was killed on her account, his property goes to the queen. And therefore he is called here "the enemy of the Jews," to reveal the reason why Haman's house was given to Esther — namely, because his execution was on account of his being the enemy of the Jews. And "Mordecai" — it appears that the king immediately elevated him and gave him permission to come before the king whenever he wished, without having to wait until he was called and the scepter extended to him.

"On that day, etc." (8:1). As to why it was necessary to write this — is this such a novel matter? After all, he was already hanged on the tree for Esther's sake; how much more so that he would give her his house! But this matter, too, is as we have said: that the essential point of the verse comes to tell us that Haman's memory was blotted out from the world. That is why he was hanged specifically, and not put to some other death — because hanging is a degradation of one's image (tzelem), to the point that his image, which is his very recognizable form, was blotted out and nullified. And once his form was blotted out, it was added upon him that he should have nothing at all left in the world, but rather that his name should be blotted out from the world. For had the house remained with his relatives, or with whoever it might be, there would still be a name and a remembrance for Haman, since his name would be recalled in connection with his house. As it is written (Deuteronomy 25:9), "So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother's house" — "and his name shall not be blotted out from Israel" (ibid. verse 6). Even though that verse refers to one who marries his [deceased brother's] wife, and this is called "his brother's house," nevertheless it is fitting to say, regarding the preservation of the house, that his name is not blotted out, and the house served as a kind of remembrance for him. But Hashem, blessed be He, decreed concerning Haman that his name be blotted out entirely, and all his sons, too, were blotted out from the world. And even according to the opinion (Megillah 15b) that some of his sons went about begging from door to door — on the contrary, this too is an instance of his memory being blotted out: in that they went about begging from door to door, his memory was for evil, since they went about begging from door to door, and this is worse than death — this is a remembrance for evil. And in the Midrash: Haman's wealth was divided into three parts — a third for the building of the Temple, a third for those who labor in Torah, and a third for Mordecai and Esther. And the explanation of this is that these three represent the nullification of Haman's power, namely: the Torah, the Temple, and Mordecai and Esther. For the Torah belongs to Israel, and it is above everything, and by virtue of this power they were able to overcome Haman through the Torah, which is above all. And the Temple, too, overcomes the power of Haman, as will be explained. And these two things, namely the Temple and the Torah, both reach in their elevated status up to the fiftieth gate, from which comes the downfall of the wicked Haman, as was explained above at length. And Mordecai and Esther, too, prevailed over Haman. And because these three were what nullified Haman's power, therefore Haman's wealth was divided into these three portions. For according to the greatness of Haman's power, only these three could nullify it — understand this very well. And therefore the verse relates only that Ahasuerus gave Esther Haman's house, and does not also relate that he gave Esther all his wealth. Rather, only a third reached Esther, while the other two-thirds went to those who labor in Torah and to the building of the Temple, and that third was absorbed together with the two-thirds. And it has already been explained above that what is meant by "a third for Mordecai and Esther" is that they had a blessing of wealth. And likewise "a third for those who labor in Torah" means that those who labor in Torah had a blessing of wealth. And likewise, for the building of the Temple, Hashem, blessed be He, gave Israel its wealth, so that the Temple would be built with a blessing of wealth. For Haman was disposed toward an abundance of wealth — which is why he was called "Haman" (המן), [related to] hamon (המון), meaning that he has abundance. And since he is disposed toward abundance, that is, toward gathering and receiving, but the righteous one swallows it up and takes it from him, as was explained above — all of this. "On that day, etc." We have already said why it is written "on that day," and what does this come to teach us? Only to say that Haman's memory was blotted out from the world entirely, and therefore, at that very time, the house upon which a person's name is called was given by Ahasuerus to Esther, and his memory was blotted out from the world. And on that same day that Haman was hanged and nullified from the world, his house too was nullified, and his name was no longer upon it. We also explained that because the righteous one swallows up the wicked one, therefore Hashem, blessed be He, gives the wicked one wealth — for the wicked one is disposed to gather more, so the wicked one gathers, and afterward the righteous one comes and swallows up everything. That is why the hanging of Haman on the tree (above, 7:10) is juxtaposed [in the text], and afterward it is written "on that day, etc." — for Haman was lost, and Haman's house came to Esther, on one and the same day. "And Mordecai came before the king, etc." The meaning is that Esther had told him what Mordecai was to her, and therefore he came before the king, to establish love and friendship with him on account of this. And one should not say that Esther was concerned that the king would regard this matter as a disgrace, in that Mordecai would become related to him by marriage. Therefore it is written, "And Mordecai came before the king."

"he took off" (he'evir) — a transitive verb, since it was removed from one and given to another; similar to "ve-et ha-am he'evir oto" ("and as for the people, he removed them") (Genesis 47:21). And Mordecai ruled over the house of Haman, for he [Haman] had had great wealth, also male and female servants, since there was none greater than him after the king. And the meaning of "ve-tosef Esther" ("and Esther spoke further") is that her entire [prior] request had been [only] to destroy Haman.

The questions: "which he had taken from Haman" is superfluous; and why does it recount what Esther did in setting Mordecai over Haman's house? "And he took off" — the bearer of the king's ring was the viceroy, ever since the king had given the ring to Haman; and it recounts that he gave the ring to Mordecai immediately, without delay, and that it was not passed through an intermediary, but directly from Haman's hand to Mordecai's hand. And "she set" — this tells us there were two things in which that wicked man had gloried: the honor of his wealth, and that with which the king had elevated him. Now, in a moment, both were turned over to Mordecai the righteous — the wicked prepares, and the righteous wears it — corresponding to his elevation, "he took off his ring which he had taken from Haman"; and corresponding to his wealth, "she set Mordecai over the house of Haman."

"And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman" (verse 2) — This should have been written above, next to (verse 1) "On that day did King Ahasuerus give to Esther, etc." For it would have appeared as a disgrace to the king if Esther had immediately and at once given to Mordecai the gift that the king had given her, as though Esther were disgracing the king and did not want his gift. Therefore it states that she gave the gift to Mordecai [only] after the king had done this thing — that he gave Mordecai his ring. And Esther said: if Mordecai is so beloved to the king*, and it is good in the king's eyes to give him the ring that he had taken from Haman, then this too will be good* in his eyes — to give him the house of Haman. And we have already said that this is why it is written, "And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman" — so that this matter should be praise to the Holy One, blessed be He, and this is the essential point of this Megillah, as was explained above: that thereby is fulfilled (Megillah 10b), "for the one who is good before God" (Ecclesiastes 2:26) — this is Mordecai, as it says, "And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman." "And to the sinner He gives to gather" (ibid.) — this is Haman, as was explained above in the introduction. Therefore one need not raise the difficulty of why it was necessary to say "And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman" — [asking] what difference it makes that Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman. And likewise regarding what is written, "And the king took off his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai" — what difference does it make whether it had been taken from Haman, or whether it was simply the king's own ring. Rather, the whole point of the Megillah is to say that Mordecai came in place of Haman, and that which Haman had planned to do to Mordecai was turned back upon him. For Ahasuerus had given Haman his ring* (above, 3:10), and with this ring Haman wrote [the decree] to destroy all the Jews, as it is written (ibid. verse 12), "and it was sealed with the king's ring." And this matter was reversed: the ring* of Haman came to Mordecai, and with it he wrote and sealed, with the king's ring, [a decree] against their enemies, to destroy them (below, verse 10). And in this too, Haman was a preparation for Mordecai — for had the king not given the ring to Haman, he would not now have given the ring to Mordecai. But because he had already given the ring to Haman, now that he wished to elevate Mordecai, he gave this same ring to him, for Mordecai was no less than Haman, that the king should give him the ring. The general principle of this matter in this Megillah is: Haman was a preparation for Mordecai, so that everything Haman intended to do was turned back upon him — and this is the foundation of the Megillah.

To divert the evil decree of Haman. That his evil plan should not be realized.

"And Esther spoke yet again," etc. — We should pay attention to these four actions of hers: "and she spoke," "and she fell," "and she wept," "and she besought" — and likewise it says "and his device that he had devised," for is not his evil and his device one and the same thing? Moreover, he also performed an actual deed in having the letters written — so how can we attribute this to a mere "device" (thought)? Likewise, there are four modes of petition here: "if it please the king," "and if I have found favor before him," "and the thing be right," and "and I be pleasing in his eyes." Further, regarding the statement "to revoke the letters" — how could this be a proper request, seeing that she surely knew that "a writing which is written... cannot be revoked"? Further it says "that he wrote to destroy" — but was that not the only thing in his mind, when in fact he wrote also "to annihilate, to slay, and to destroy"? Further it says "that are in all the king's provinces" — who did not know that the matter applied to all the king's provinces? Further, why the repetition, that she says "how can I endure" twice, and what is the variation, that the first time she says "the evil that shall come upon my people," and the second time she says "the destruction of my kindred"? Now, Haman at first intended only to destroy them, for so he said to the king: "let it be written to destroy them." But afterward, when he saw that the king's heart was disposed to do his will, and the king gave him further leeway, saying, "and the people, to do with them as seems good in your eyes," he then found an opening and completed the evil, and had it written "to annihilate, to slay, and to destroy." This is what we said above: that he used a term that was generic and unformed (hyle) in saying "to destroy them," which could be interpreted either as the destruction of lives or the destruction of property; and once he saw that the king had granted him full authority to do as he saw fit, he then chose the harsher meaning, as he wished. Now Esther feared that her petition might avail only to remove one of his evil decrees, or two out of the three (trei migo telata), but not to nullify the standing of all three of them; or even if the king should agree to nullify the writ — that is, "to annihilate, to slay, and to destroy," which is "his evil that he wrote" — he might still retain his original plan, which he had spoken to the king, namely "to destroy them," meaning at least the destruction of property. Therefore, "she spoke, and fell before his feet, and wept, and besought him": the first three actions correspond to what was written, which comprises three matters — "to annihilate, to slay, and to destroy" — and the fourth, concerning which "she besought him," concerns the first plan, which was "to destroy them," meaning at least the destruction of property, lest the king say he would fulfill Haman's original statement to him; therefore "she besought him" to remove that as well. This is the meaning of "to put away the evil of Haman the Agagite" — that is his evil, which he wickedly carried out in writing, referring to the first three matters — and "his device that he had devised against the Jews" refers to the matter of his first plan, which he had told the king: "let it be written to destroy them." Then the king's mercy was stirred, and "he held out the golden scepter," etc. — which is a sign of finding favor, similar to the matter, "except him to whom the king shall hold out the golden scepter, that he may live" — and also to hint to her that she should rise from the ground. Then "she arose and stood before the king." At that point she said to herself: it is indeed true that his heart has turned toward good because of my supplication — but what can I do? Even if he now commands that no hand be laid on the Jews, it will not help, for "a writing which is written in the king's name... cannot be revoked." And there was a second concern: lest the king say, "did I not say, what is your request, even to half the kingdom?" — and our Sages taught that this alludes to her being warned not to request the building of the Temple, which is "from half the kingdom and beyond" — and in the same way, one might think he could also say this regarding annulling the decree against the Jews, that it applies only up to half the kingdom. Therefore she returned and said, "if it please the king, and if I have found favor," etc. — which are four kinds of supplication, encompassing the four matters: three concerning Haman's evil, "to annihilate, to slay, and to destroy," and one concerning his device that he had devised, namely "to destroy them" — and so that the matter be nullified of itself, "let it be written to revoke the letters." This is in accordance with the premise we established above, namely that two kinds of letters were written: one, to be issued as a decree posted at the head of the tumultuous streets, revealed to all the peoples — and in these there was nothing except that [the recipients] were destined for that appointed day, without knowing what it concerned; and a second set of letters, to the officials in every city and province, an explicit writing "to annihilate," etc., to be kept concealed until the appointed time, to be shown to the assembled populace of the city, to inform them of what they had been designated for. Now let us come to the matter itself: she said to herself, is it not so that "the law of Media and Persia, which applies everywhere, and a decree that the king has established cannot be altered" — just as was said regarding Darius the Mede, the father of this Ahasuerus? Therefore she said: do this, then — do not write that you are retracting your own statement, lest you become an object of scorn, since the law of Media and Persia cannot be revoked; but rather, write to the officials to return to you the letters you sent them. Then, at the appointed time, when the assembled populace of the city come to ask what the designated day concerned, they will not find the letters in which the details of the decree were written, and salvation will come about of itself — for the officials will contrive secretly not to reveal what had been written in the letters, and the king will suffer no loss of honor in the matter, since the decree itself is not being revoked, only the letters, whose contents were never made public. This is [the meaning of] "to revoke the letters," etc. And to this the king responded, saying that not only can what is written in the king's name not be changed, but the writ itself cannot even be recalled — even though what is written in it has not yet been made public. And she completed her statement, saying "that are in all the king's provinces," so that the king would not say [it applies only] "up to half the kingdom" and act accordingly, excluding all the Jews who are beyond half the kingdom; therefore she said "that are in all the king's provinces." And since, when she had spoken to the king earlier, she had said only "to destroy them," whereas Haman had had it written "to annihilate," etc., she was concerned lest, before Haman had been given full license to write "to annihilate," etc., some letter had perhaps already been sent to one of the places [saying only] "to destroy them," in keeping with what he had originally told the king; and therefore, were it written only to revoke the letters that said "to annihilate," etc., they would not revoke those that said [merely] "to destroy them" — for they would say that this reflected Haman's original plan, his first intention, and all the more so those that said "to annihilate," etc. And concerning Haman's evil, which was "to annihilate," etc., which he devised on his own — of this she said, "for how can I endure to see the evil," etc. — and so that the king would not say that matters stand not according to his evil that he had written, "to annihilate," etc., but rather according to his original plan that he had told me, which was only "to destroy them," since by my having agreed with him the decree would still stand — for this she said, "and how can I endure to see," etc. Alternatively, it may be said: let it not enter your mind that my people's distress does not touch me — for know, then, that my own deliverance, and that of my kindred (my father's house), depend on my people being saved through me. This is what Mordecai said to her: "for if you keep silent at this time," etc. This is what we said above, that the guilt of Haman's evil hung upon the neck of Saul, her father's ancestor, who spared Agag for one night and thereby introduced the taint in the maidservant from whom Haman descended. Therefore Mordecai said to her: if Israel is redeemed through you, you will atone for that sin; but if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for them from elsewhere, through someone other than you, and not through you — and Saul's iniquity will not be atoned for; therefore, "you and your father's house will perish because of his iniquity." In light of this, her statement to the king means: I request that my people's deliverance come specifically through me, for it cannot be otherwise — either they will perish, or they will be redeemed through someone other than me, if you do not act for my sake. If they perish: "how can I endure to see the evil that shall come upon my people"; and if they do not perish, but are saved through someone else: "how can I endure to see the destruction of my kindred" — this is [the meaning of] Mordecai's statement, "relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you," etc., as discussed.

The questions: Why did she now add to her pleading more than she had pleaded before? What is the doubling that is doubled in different words? And what is the duplication of "the mischief of Haman" and "his device"? "And Esther spoke yet again" — the commentators explain: after Esther saw that the king had granted her other matters, but regarding the essence of her request itself he had answered her nothing at all, then fear came over her, for the king had already despaired of granting her this request, and that is why he wished to put her off with other gifts — in the manner of one who does not wish to fulfill his friend's request, and so promises him other things instead. For had he wished to fulfill her request, he would have had to promise her first concerning the essence of her request, since that was the main thing to her, before giving her other things. Therefore, specifically now, fear seized her, and her heart was emboldened to plead with supplications. And behold, she did not refrain from performing every action that would bring it about that the petitioner obtain her petition. For sometimes one obtains his request by multiplying words and rhetorical arguments, to show that the thing requested deserves to be done on the grounds of honesty and justice — and regarding this, "and she spoke before the king" with words of reason and understanding. And sometimes the petitioner's request is granted because he arouses weeping and supplication, and they have compassion on the petitioner — and regarding this, "and she fell before his feet and wept and pleaded with him to put away the mischief of Haman." Now, Esther requested that the king send couriers to take back the letters and annul the decree. For if she were to wait until the appointed time, and the king wished instead to send other, sealed letters that would likewise be held until the appointed time, in which would be written the opposite of the first letters — as the king indeed did afterward in fact — this would be problematic for two reasons: (1) Until the appointed time arrived, when they would open the letters and see that the decree had been annulled, in the meantime the Jews would undergo many troubles, and throughout that entire time their tormentors would abuse them, since it had already become known that they had been sold to be destroyed — and this is why she said "to put away the mischief of Haman," meaning the evil that is presently occurring. (2) Even once the time came — since in the letters that Haman had sent he had done much to make the Jews odious — even when other letters arrived, people would not believe the word of the later token, but only the word of the first token; and this is why she said, "and his device that he had devised." She also included in her words two arguments, corresponding to the fact that she knew it was the law of the kings of Persia that a document written and issued in the king's name cannot be revoked. This is why "she opened her mouth in wisdom" — that the king had no reason to be concerned about this, whether on the king's own account or on account of the ministers. Whether on the king's own account: he need not fear that he was transgressing the law of the monarchy by revoking his own decree, since in truth these matters had not originated from him, and the king knew the truth, that he had never intended such a thing against the people of Hashem — rather, this had been Haman's plan, not the king's plan. Whether on account of the ministers: the king need not fear that the people of his kingdom would rebel against him if they saw him changing the law of the state by revoking the king's decree. Regarding this she argued: the letters are still sealed and have not been opened — as I explained above, that there were sealed letters that had not been opened, in which Haman's plan was written in detail, to destroy all the Jews; but in the public copy (patshegen), which was made known to all the peoples, the substance of his plan was not written — it stated only that they should be ready, without explaining for what or why. Therefore she advised that he revoke only the letters in which Haman's plan was written, namely the sealed letters — for regarding these letters he need not fear, since they contain only Haman's plan, which remained in the realm of thought and had not yet been made known to anyone. And if he revoked them and sent others in their place, no one would know that he had revoked his decree.

"And Esther spoke yet again, etc." (verse 3) — Why was it necessary to say "and Esther spoke yet again," when it should have sufficed to write only "and Esther spoke before the king"? He means to say that this matter was an addition to what she had said at first, "for how can I endure to see the destruction of my kindred" — now she requested an additional matter, namely, to put away the mischief of Haman. Her intent concerned the letters that Haman wrote, to remove the Jews from the world so that they would no longer exist. And even though "a writing that is written in the king's name may not be revoked" (below, verse 8), nevertheless she requested that the letters be revoked, for if not so, even if he were to write that the Jews should not be killed, perhaps in the end that writing would be lost, while the first ones would remain in force, and deeds would be done on the strength of the first letters. And even were the second letters before us, since "the king's writing may not be revoked," one could say that he relies upon the first writing. Therefore she said "to put away the mischief of Haman" from the world. And this is called "an addition," because it is not proper according to protocol, yet nevertheless the king would do this thing in order to save the Jews. Therefore she said "to put away the mischief of Haman," meaning to remove from the world the evil letters, so that the evil that he wrote concerning the Jews would no longer exist in the world. And because this appeared to be an improper request, therefore it is written "and she fell down before him, etc." As for why she had not done this before, when the decree to kill and destroy all the Jews had been annulled — this matter did not require so great a request to annul the decree, for that was not against the king's honor. But this matter, to revoke the letters, is very difficult, for it is against the king's honor, as will be explained. And she reckoned that when she would entreat with an extra plea, the king would do this thing. And Esther said only "to put away the mischief of Haman," and did not wish to speak explicitly of revoking the letters, for that was a disgrace and an affront to the king, as will be explained; therefore she alluded to this matter and said to him "to put away the mischief of Haman." She did not say that he should not do this — that is, kill the Jews — but rather said to put away the letters from the world, and this was because Haman had already been hanged for having sought to do evil to the Jews, and therefore this matter did not require a request. Rather she said to put away the letters from the world, in which was the mischief of Haman. But the king did not understand her intent; therefore, when she fell upon her face, he extended to her the golden scepter (verse 4). For the king did not know why she had fallen upon her face, since he had already put Haman to death for seeking to lay a hand upon the Jews, and therefore no request was needed on that account. Therefore the king extended to her the scepter, so that she would rise and explain her request, and explain why she was so afraid. And then (ibid.) "and Esther rose, etc.," and she explained her request explicitly (verse 5): "to revoke the letters," as we explained above. And then the king said (verse 7): "Behold, I have given the house of Haman to Esther, and him they have hanged upon the gallows, because he laid his hand upon the Jews" — and if so, who would imagine doing them any harm after all this? And let no one say that he relies upon the writing that the king wrote at first, since he sees the king's intent, in that Haman was hanged for laying his hand upon the Jews, and he would certainly not do anything evil to the Jews — such was the intent of Ahasuerus. And he said: if all this is not enough for you, and you are still afraid of the first letters — that is because the enemies of Israel, who are the friends of Haman, will not say that Haman was hanged because he laid his hand upon the Jews; rather they will say that since the king already gave a writing to destroy the Jews, the king does not go back on it. And concerning this he said (verse 8): "Write of the Jews as it pleases you" — meaning, whatever can be done; but to revoke the letters, this thing is a disgrace. Therefore he wrote that the king had granted the Jews to gather themselves and stand for their lives, and to destroy all who would afflict them (verse 11). And from now on they need have no concern at all about this matter, for behold, Haman, who sought to lay his hand upon the Jews, was already put to death on account of having written those letters, for he spoke falsely against the Jews. And this brought about the writing of the second letters, and therefore their enemies were killed, since it was through them that this came about — so it is fitting to explain. And by this a great question is resolved: why did the king command this thing, to kill the enemies of the Jews? Even though he certainly did not wish to kill the Jews, nevertheless, on this account, the Jews should not have been permitted to kill their enemies, for they had done nothing — why should they be killed? Rather, the matter is as we have said: since Esther was afraid of the first letters, and Ahasuerus said (verse 8), "write of the Jews as it pleases you," and there was no way to remove this concern except through this, that they should kill their enemies. Therefore they wrote this thing, to kill their enemies. One can also explain the verses according to their plain sense: that Esther requested to put away the mischief of Haman and his device. She said "the mischief of Haman" — that they should not kill them; "and his device" — even though there is no deed here, nevertheless they think concerning them that they deserve to be killed, just as the wicked Haman thought concerning the Jews. And if so, the Jews would be like ownerless property, so that anyone could do to them as he pleased. All of this needed to be removed by having them kill their enemies. And as for why Esther now needed to fall before his feet — for now she was requesting something greater. Because Esther had thought that what Ahasuerus had done was for her sake, since she was his queen, and she had said that she had been sold along with her people to be killed. But here she requested to put away the mischief of Haman that he had devised against all the Jews, and this certainly required an additional request. Therefore the king said (verse 7) that behold, he had given the house of Haman — this was for Esther's sake, because he had wished to lay a hand upon her, for Ahasuerus supposed that Haman's design had been against Esther, as we said above. Therefore he said, "behold, I have given the house of Haman to Esther" for this reason; but as for his having laid his hand upon the Jews, for that Haman was hanged, for hanging upon a tree is a matter revealed to all, so that they should hear and fear and no longer act presumptuously (based on Deuteronomy 17:13). And if so, the matter is not as you think, that I did everything for your sake — that is not so. For what I gave you, the house of Haman, was for your sake. But the hanging upon the tree is for the sake of the Jews, who need greater strengthening and protection, and therefore for their sake he was hanged upon the tree, so that it would be known to all, and they would not continue to do such a thing. And because Esther had said "to revoke the letters" (verse 5), concerning this he said (verse 8): "And you, write of the Jews as it pleases you, for a writing that is written in the king's name and sealed with the king's ring may not be revoked" — that is, to recall the writing that had been sent — for this matter would be as though the king had erred in the first writing, and that it had been written wrongfully. And if so, even other writings would be counted as nothing, for people would say: just as he erred in the first writing, since he recalled it, so too he errs in other writings. Therefore he said, "write of the Jews as it pleases you," but not to recall the letters themselves, for that would indicate that the letters had been written in error. Therefore, new letters should be written, and this is no disgrace to the king, for one can attribute it to something new having arisen after the writing of the first letters. But one should not revoke the letters, for that would be because the letters were written in error. Therefore he said, "write of the Jews as it pleases you." Even though from the later letters an annulment of the first ones results, that is of no consequence, for concerning this one would say: at first it was so, and now another matter arose afterward that was new, and both are true, each in its own time. But to revoke the letters themselves — that is a disgrace. However, the difficulty as to why she fell before Ahasuerus, why this was so — concerning this he explains "and Esther spoke yet again before the king." For since the king had already granted her request, and she returned again to ask request after request, this is no honor to the king, as though the king were easily persuaded. And likewise "and fell down at his feet" — she was pleading with him that he grant her request. And as to why she said here more fully "to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite," and did not say this above, where she did not mention "Agagite" — rather she said now that this hatred is not on account of Haman alone, but is an ancient hatred. For Agag was of the seed of Amalek (I Samuel 15:8), and Israel was to destroy Amalek because Hashem, may He be blessed, so commanded, to destroy Amalek (Deuteronomy 25:19). Therefore Samuel, the prophet of Hashem, may He be blessed, killed him before Hashem. And Amalek has descendants, and they are the persecutors of Israel. And what does it avail that Haman was killed, he being one of the persecutors — on this account the rest, who are the seed of Amalek and the enemies of Israel, were not eliminated. And there is no distinction between Haman and another, except that Haman carried out the mission of them all. Therefore Esther said "to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite," meaning to remove the evil entirely, so that it would not be found even among the rest who are the persecutors of the Jews. And likewise afterward she said (verse 5), "to revoke the letters, the device of Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to destroy the Jews." And so, everywhere that she mentioned "Agagite," her intent was concerning those who are enemies and are of the seed of Agag. For this hatred stemming from being Agagite is not a hatred toward an individual alone, but toward all who are called "Agagite." Therefore, when the king said that what you have said, to revoke the letters, this thing is impossible; rather, "write of the Jews as it pleases you," so that they may kill their enemies, so that they will no longer exist. One can also explain that everything Haman did to the Jews, he did only on account of Agagite hatred, to take revenge for what Saul did to Agag, and not for the sake of truth. And a thing that is not grounded in truth, but only in hatred, should be removed so that it no longer exists. And she did not say here "the mischief of Haman," as she said above. For here Esther said "to revoke the letters," and the letters are what the king wrote, and one cannot call the king's writing "the mischief of Haman." But above she said only to put away his device that he had devised, and this is certainly [properly called] "the mischief of Haman."

"And he held out" — this was permission for her to rise and speak her words in detail.

"and it be good" (ve-khasher) — the meaning is "good," similar to "eizeh yikhsher" ("whichever shall prosper") (Ecclesiastes 11:6) and "ba-kosharot" (Psalms 68:7). The kaph of "eikhakhah ukhal" ("how can I") is doubled; some say that they are [really] two words, like "eikhah" [plus "kaph"]. For we find "eikhah," whose cantillation is "tarcha," like the sense of "eikhah" in "eikhakhah ukhal lihyot" ("how can I bear to be"). The nun of "be-ovdan" ("in the perishing") stands in place of a mem [i.e., as if "be-ovdam," "in their perishing"], or it is a feminine form, meaning "in the perishing of the souls of my kindred." But it is better to understand "ovdan" as a verbal noun, like "makat cherev ve-hereg ve-ovdan" ("the stroke of the sword, and slaying, and destruction") (Esther 9:5), with the nun added, for the patterns of verbal nouns vary.

The questions: The doubling in Esther's words is evident; the words "the devices of Haman" are superfluous. "If it please the king" — meaning: one who fulfills his fellow's request does so either for the sake of the petitioner or for the sake of the thing requested, and each of these can occur in one of two ways — either because the petitioner or the thing requested has found favor in his eyes, or because he hopes to gain some benefit or pleasure from the petitioner by fulfilling his request, or from the thing requested itself by carrying it out. First she said [she hoped] that he would wish to fulfill her request because either she or the thing requested had found favor in his eyes. This is what she meant by "if it please the king" — that the thing requested is good and pleasing in his eyes; and "if I have found favor in his sight" — that the petitioner is one who finds favor. Then she added the second mode: that he might wish to fulfill her request because he would gain benefit and advantage from the petitioner or from the thing requested. This is what she meant by "and the matter seem proper [kasher] before the king" — that he would gain benefit from the thing itself, for one who sits upon the throne of peoples finds benefit in doing justice and righteousness; and "and I be pleasing in his eyes" — that he finds benefit from her, and thereby he would fulfill my request for my own sake, so that I not die upon seeing the distress of my people. And she intended by this that he needed to fulfill her request on the basis of all four of these aspects together, since all of them were present and applied here: "let it be written to reverse..." Now she detailed the counsel mentioned above in specifics — that the king should send couriers to retrieve the sealed letters in which Haman's plan was written, for the ministers do not yet know what is written in them, and there would be no disgrace to the king in this.

"If it please the king, etc." — The meaning of the verse is this: a thing that is fit to be done completely, such that there is no aspect at all on account of which it should not be done, is when the deed is good for the one doing it, and it is also fitting for the recipient, and the deed is also fitting in itself. Therefore she said "if it please the king" — this is with respect to the one doing [the deed], that it is good for him. And corresponding to its being fitting with respect to the recipient, she said "and if I have found favor in his sight" — that is, the one to whom the deed is being done; since he finds favor in his eyes, it is fitting with respect to the recipient. And she said further, "and the thing seem right [kasher]" — meaning that this is what the attribute of rightness dictates, and it is fit in itself. Now sometimes, even though the recipient has found favor, and it is fitting to do from the standpoint of the one doing it, and likewise it is fitting to do from the standpoint of the recipient — nevertheless it is not fitting to do in itself, because it is contrary to rightness. Concerning this she said three things: "if it please the king" — that is with respect to the one doing it. "And if I have found favor in his sight" — and on account of this it is fitting to do it, and this is with respect to the recipient. "And the thing seem right" — with respect to itself. And she said, "and I be pleasing in his eyes" — for the good is a matter of will, and one wants the good. Therefore, "let it be written to reverse the letters" — and even though it is not so fitting to reverse letters that were written in the king's name, nevertheless one should act beyond the strict letter of the law [lifnim mishurat ha-din], since the petitioner herself is good and does all her affairs beyond the strict letter of the law; therefore he should likewise act toward her beyond the strict letter of the law, and write to reverse the letters.

The questions: The doubling is evident. "For how can I" — she gave the reason why it would not be possible to write other sealed letters that would likewise be placed in the ministers' hands until the appointed time arrived, in which would be written the opposite of the first ones. For in this there are two flaws: (1) "For how can I endure and see the evil that shall find my people" — immediately, until the appointed time arrives, for during that time they would be ready for plunder and disgrace. (2) The main point: that when the time arrives, they will not heed the word of the later letters. "And how can I endure and see the destruction of my kindred" — and these are exactly the things she spoke of in verse 3.

"For how [eichacha], etc." (verse 6). Why did she need to say "eichacha" ["how can I"] twice? For had she written, "for how can I endure and see the evil that shall come to my people and the destruction of my kindred" [as a single expression], it would appear that her request was only that her people be spared, even though her family would be destroyed — or conversely, that if her kindred were spared to her, even though evil befell her people, she would not be troubled. Therefore she stated, concerning each one separately, that she could not endure to see it. And regarding her people she did not say "in the destruction of my people," because certainly it is impossible that he would kill them all without some individuals escaping, and not all being handed over into their hands; also, because regarding this she was confident, [relying] on Hashem, may He be blessed, that Israel would not be destroyed entirely. But regarding her kindred, it was possible to say that they would be destroyed completely.

Here, [I have given] Haman’s estate, etc. And from now on everyone sees that I favor you, and whatever you say, everyone will believe that it comes from me; therefore, you do not have to rescind them, but “write” other letters “as you please.” — Notes: (1) Achashveirosh’s reply does not address Esther’s request that he rescind Haman’s evil plans against the Jews. Therefore Rashi explains that the meaning of Achashveirosh’s reply was that, “from now on everyone sees....” (Sifsei Chachomim)

"Then the king Ahasuerus said, etc." — Behold, we wrote above that there were two kinds of documents among the first letters: in them an explicit text was written and sent to the officials of each and every people and province, and these were kept in safekeeping until the thirteenth of Adar, so that they would show them to the common people, to make known the meaning of the decree that had been given in a general way — that the Jews were destined for that day. But in Shushan the decree was given explicitly, to destroy them, as it says, "and a copy of the writing," etc. And therefore, also in Shushan it was necessary to proclaim once more that the Jews were destined to take revenge upon their enemies, as in the other provinces of the king. For otherwise, from the time the decree had been given there to destroy them, the city of Shushan had been bewildered, for all the common people were throttling every Jewish man and saying to him, "Tomorrow I will kill you and take your property," as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said. And even so, they were still in danger there, lest the common people rise up and say: "Is it not the law of Media and Persia that a decree not be altered? And yesterday it was proclaimed to destroy them, and now a decree has been given to Israel to take revenge upon their enemies" — and the multitude of the city would hold to the earlier one. But it is possible to silence their mouths by saying that both the one and the other stand: that they, the enemies, may rise up to destroy them, and they, the Jews, are permitted to take revenge upon their enemies. And if they do so, perhaps they will gather a great assembly of people against Israel, and Israel will not lift up its head, and will fall among the fallen, God forbid — a fear that does not exist regarding the other provinces of the king, for when the decree was made public and known to all the peoples, what had been written in the documents — "to destroy, to slay," etc. — was not spelled out, and therefore they did not sense the change. Therefore, so that the people of the city of Shushan would not rise up, the king made signs that all the common people would recognize: that in the second letters he greatly desired one particular sign — that the couriers, etc., went forth hurried and pressed by the king's word, whereas in the first letters they were described only as "pressed," without more. And also, the decree was not given in Shushan until its inhabitants saw that the couriers had gone forth hurried and pressed, and only afterward was the decree given. And this is the meaning of "the couriers," etc., and "the decree was given," etc. Furthermore, the king acted so that fear of the Jews would fall upon everyone present in Shushan, and this is reflected in the fact that as soon as the decree was given in Shushan, immediately, "and Mordecai went out..."

"Behold, the house of Haman" and "you write" — behold, the king did not agree to her [Esther's] advice to have the sealed documents recalled, for a document written in the king's name cannot be recalled. However, he advised them with correct counsel, with wisdom and knowledge, that the first documents should remain in the hands of the officials, and nevertheless their hearts would be secure from all harm. Now there were two pieces of advice involved in this matter: First: In the first documents it was written "to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all the Jews." Here one can explain the word "the Jews" as the subject of the clause "to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all" — that is, who is the destroyer? The Jews — they will be the destroyers. In this reading the object is left unstated, for the first letter did not specify whom they were to destroy. This is what the later letters clarify, for they added to them the phrase "the people and province that oppress them" — "to destroy, to kill... all the armed forces of the people and province that oppress them." And who will destroy? The Jews will destroy all the armed forces of the people and province [that oppress them]. Accordingly, the later letters do not recall and annul the first ones, but merely clarify them; and whenever the second writing does not detract from the first but merely adds words to it in order to clarify it, this is not called recalling the words of the king. This is what Esther intended by the king's counsel. And so it is said, "and you write concerning the Jews as it seems good in your eyes" — meaning, concerning the death of the Jews, you may write the clarification as seems good in your eyes, to clarify that the Jews would be the destroyers, not the destroyed. And the second [piece of advice]: even though this is merely a somewhat forced explanation — particularly since the first letters were written in many languages, so that surely there would be found many linguistic versions that could not sustain this explanation — nevertheless, his advice was a good one for removing all fears. For it is evident that if a speaker says, "Reuben will give money to Simeon," [and] "Reuben will not give money to Simeon," "Reuben will strike Simeon," [and] "Reuben will not strike Simeon" — these are statements that contradict one another. But if he says, "Reuben will give money to Simeon" and "Simeon will give money to Reuben," "Reuben will strike Simeon" and "Simeon will strike Reuben" — this is not within the category of contradiction, for both can hold true simultaneously. So too, had Ahasuerus gone back and written that the peoples should not destroy the Jews, the later letters would have contradicted the first ones. But since instead he wrote a second time that the Jews would destroy those who oppress them, this is not a contradiction, for both can hold true — he gave both parties permission to fight one another. However, would the Jews not still be in danger by this, since their oppressors, too, have permission to kill them, and who knows whose hand would prevail? On this he prefaced by saying, "Behold, I have given the house of Haman to Esther," etc. — meaning: behold, with the issuing of the later letters there are two concerns: First: from the peoples who received the open text of the edict [saying] "to be ready for this day," and who had heard the report by word of mouth that the decree was against the Jews — even when letters arrive saying the opposite, will they not fight the Jews and harm them? But this is easily remedied, since in the open edict to all the peoples, it was written only "to be ready for this day," and it was not written who would be "ready," nor for what they would be "ready." Now in the second edict it is written explicitly: first, who would be ready — that the Jews would be ready; second, for what they would be ready — to avenge themselves on their enemies. Consequently the second edict is merely a clarification of the first, and they [the peoples] have no [warrant] to raise a hand or foot to do harm to the Jews, for even the first decree is [now] explained by the second, that on the contrary, the Jews will avenge themselves on their enemies. By this he resolved Esther's fear, that before the appointed day arrived they would do harm to the Jews, as it says, "For how can I endure to see the evil that shall come upon my people?" (Esther 8:6) And the second concern: that they [the Jews] had cause to fear the danger that would come upon them when the appointed day arrived, for then the sealed first and later letters would be opened, and it would be seen, plainly stated in the first letters, that a decree had been given to destroy the Jews. And even though in the later letters it was written that the Jews, too, had permission to avenge themselves on their enemies, there was still cause for concern — whether from the side of the oppressors, that their hand would prevail over the Jews, or from the side of the officials, lest they help the oppressors, since they had license to act in accordance with either of the two letters. On this he prefaced by saying: behold, that which I have given the house of Haman to Esther, and that they hanged him on the gallows, was because he laid his hand against the Jews — and this is a well-known and famous matter. For it was for this reason that I gave his house to Esther: because he rebelled in seeking to destroy her people and her native land. Consequently the officials already knew that the first letters had been written against the will of the king, and certainly when the appointed day arrived and the two letters were opened, they would conceal the first letters in favor of the later ones, for they would fear for their own lives lest what happened to Haman happen to them, and they would certainly help the Jews. And the peoples would not know at all what had been written in the first letters, for the officials would conceal them — and thus there was no cause for fear or danger at all.

"Then the king Ahasuerus said, etc." (verse 7). We have already explained this: that Esther, because she requested that the letters be reversed, [feared] lest the second letters not be found [in time], and the first ones would remain in force, leading to harm. Therefore he answered her, "Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged upon the gallows" — and all this was because he had sought to lay his hand upon the Jews. If so, by this reasoning the matter is [now] known and publicized, and there is no longer need to worry about it. And if all this does not suffice to make the matter sufficiently publicized and known, "write as seems good in your eyes," so that there will be no need to worry about the first letters that went out. Therefore Ahasuerus included Mordecai together with this, saying "and you write, etc." — for Mordecai was a great sage, one of those who sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. And he likewise included Esther the queen together with this, for she was the primary agent in that matter, since she had made the request before the king concerning it — only, to reverse the letters [outright] was not possible.

It is not rescindable. It is not fitting to rescind it and make the king’s writ invalid.

"and seal it" (ve-nachtom) — [this is] a verbal noun (infinitive), and the meaning is "ve-nachtom nechtam," on the pattern of "nikhsof nikhsafta" ("you longed intensely") (Genesis 31:30). One might ask: why did Mordecai write to kill the enemies of the Jews, when it would have sufficed for him and for them merely to escape? Know that he was a great sage. For Ahasuerus had said to him: "[Do] whatever you are able, in order to save your people, for the first letters that Haman wrote were written in my name and sealed with my ring — I cannot revoke them, for such is the law of Media and Persia." And the proof is in the words of Daniel, that Darius was unable to save him. Now, as for why Mordecai needed to write it this way — know that the king had commanded Haman, who was viceroy to the king, to write a letter in the king's name, and the king gave him his ring to seal it, [decreeing] that the Jews would kill their enemies on the thirteenth of the month of Adar. But Haman reversed the matter, so that the Jews would be killed on that day. And once [the king] recognized the course of his evil scheme, he hanged him on the gallows, for he had stretched out his hand against the Jews, contrary to the will of the king. And this is the meaning of "ubevo'ah lifnei ha-melekh" ("when she came before the king"), as I shall explain. And behold, the reliable proof [of this] is that Haman was hanged, and the king commanded that other letters be written and sealed with his ring according to his original intent — and this is [the meaning of] "venahafoch hu" ("but it was turned about") (Esther 9:1).

In its own script. With its characters [i.e., alphabet]. In its own language. The spoken language.

"mi-Hodu" ("from Hodu/India") — the northern extremity of his kingdom.

The questions: Why did he wait until the twenty-third of Sivan? "And they were called" — the MaHaRA"A (R. Eliezer Ashkenazi) explains that he waited until the twenty-third of Sivan because he wanted the very same couriers who had carried Haman's letters to also carry these letters, so that [the recipients] would believe their words; and they did not return until the twenty-third of Sivan. This is a correct reason. Now, Mordecai also added instructions written to the Jews themselves, and by this he gave force to the later letters. For as to the officials to whom both documents had arrived, this in effect gave them license to do as they wished, since both decrees remained in force for them. But once the later documents reached people to whom the first documents had not arrived, he revealed his intent that they were not given the choice to do as they wished, for those who had not received the first documents had in their hands only the second decree; and thus, ipso facto, the second decree stood in force and nullified the first for them.

"Then the king's scribes were called, etc." (verse 9). It was necessary to write "at that time," even though afterward it specifies the time explicitly — the month of Sivan. Now, if the verse meant to say that the deed mentioned before this happened "at that time" that was mentioned (—on the 13th of Nisan—) [on the 23rd of Sivan], and just as the deed mentioned afterward was (—on the 13th—) [on the 23rd] of Sivan, so too the deed mentioned before this was (—on the 13th—) [on the 23rd] of Sivan — namely, what it said (verse 8), "and you write concerning the Jews as it pleases you" — and there was no interval between the command that said "and you write concerning the Jews" and the calling of the king's scribes to write, for they did not delay in this matter — if so, it would have been fitting to write the time explicitly above, in the deed that precedes this, and to write afterward, "Then the king's scribes were called at that time," rather than writing the time in this deed. Now, one could resolve this difficulty by saying that this is because the essential point of this time is the 23rd of Sivan, and it pertains to the writing. But it is a further* difficulty: why did Esther wait, without falling before his feet, from the 17th of the month of Nisan until the 23rd of Sivan? It appears that this is because Ahasuerus had sent, about three days before this, [orders] to kill and destroy all the Jews; and if he were to write, after [only] three days, that the Jews should stand for their lives and slay their enemies, this would appear as folly, and people would think that the king's deeds were conducted in madness (based on 2 Kings 9:20). And as they said (Megillah 12b): had it not been for the first letters that the king wrote (above, 1:22), "that every man should rule in his own house" — which appears to be a foolish thing — not a remnant or survivor would have been left of the enemies of Israel. For when the letters reached them to kill and destroy all the Jews, they would not have waited until the 13th of Adar, but would have killed them immediately. But because they saw that his letters had no substance to them, but were confused words — as when he wrote to them "that every man should rule in his own house" — therefore they did not pay attention to the letters to act on them immediately. So too, had he written to them immediately that the Jews would kill their enemies, they would not have relied on this at all, for it would appear that he conducts himself in madness. Therefore they waited until this time, from the 16th* of Nisan until the 23rd, and from now on this is no disgrace, for it is possible that things could have changed in the meantime, to the extent that the matter could be reversed, and they would not attribute it to the king's conduct, saying that his conduct was disorderly. Therefore, even though the time is written explicitly, nonetheless, lest you say that this event, which occurred on the 23rd of Sivan, happened by chance, and could have been earlier, and it would be a wonder that it was delayed so long — therefore it says "at that time," on the 23rd of Sivan, for she specifically delayed the matter until the 23rd of Sivan for the reason explained above: so that his conduct would not appear disorderly, as it would if he wrote one thing, and within three or four days wrote its opposite. For this reason she waited this length of time. And it further appears that Esther waited until the 23rd of Sivan because Ahasuerus went from one opposite to the other. For at first the decree was that the seed of Haman would destroy the Jews, and now this was reversed, so that the Jews would destroy the seed of Amalek and his allies. And therefore there were seventy days between this and that: for from the 13th day of Nisan until the end of Nisan is eighteen days, and Iyar is twenty-nine days, and then the 23rd of Sivan — altogether seventy. For Amalek is the head of the seventy nations who are opposed to Israel, as it is written (Numbers 24:20), "Amalek was the first of the nations" — and the seventy nations are certainly the opposite of Israel. Therefore, from the day it was written that the seed of Amalek would rule over the Jews until the day it was written that the Jews would destroy Amalek, there were seventy days, corresponding to the seventy nations — showing how far removed the seed of Amalek, who are the first of the nations, are from Israel. Now, even though the actual destruction was on the 13th of Adar, and that was the day that had been decreed for the Jews (above, 3:13) — this is a separate matter, for this was because the lot that Haman cast upon the Jews to destroy them was turned back upon him, and therefore they occurred on the same day. But as for the day on which the letters were written, the lot did not fall upon that, for the lot concerned only the destruction, and that matter was turned back upon him. Therefore the days of the writing of the letters were as far apart from each other as the Jews are far from the seed of Amalek. And one may further say that when Hashem, may He be blessed, redeemed them, it was as though Israel had gone out from under the seventy nations. Therefore Israel was in distress, when Haman came upon them, for seventy days, corresponding to the seventy nations. And they did not go out from the distress of Haman until the 23rd of Sivan, for then the letters were sent to all the lands, and they went out from the distress, and it was accounted to them as though they had gone out from the distress of all seventy nations. But as long as the letters had not gone out, they were still in distress. Therefore it says "at that time" — for specifically at that hour was it fitting to send the letters, and not at all before that; so it would be fitting to say. But the first explanation is the essential one. And as for what it says, "by the hand of the runners on horses" (verse 10) — whereas above it is written (3:15), "the runners went out in haste by the king's word," [without mention of horses]. This is because above, where he sent letters to destroy the Jews, this matter was a curse; therefore it was not written there "the runners on horses," for running on horses is an expression of joy, as they said (Shabbat 152a), "one who rides upon a horse is a king." Therefore it is not written there that this was on horses. But here*, since this matter was a joy — to save them from death — therefore it was on horses, for riding on the horse is joy, for there was no distress at all in this. And even though this was to destroy the enemy, this too is certainly a joy — to destroy the enemy who is an adversary and a foe* — and it is written (Proverbs 11:10), "and when the wicked perish there is joyous song." "The riders of the racing steeds, etc." — meaning that the riders on horses are "the riders of the racing steeds," for these are great experts, and they are able to run with speed.

Carried by couriers. The horsemen, whom he [the king] commanded to hurry. Of the royal breed. A type of camel that runs swiftly.

"riders of the rekhesh" (rokhvei ha-rekhesh) — from the property (rekhush) of the king, the likes of which there are none. "ha-achashteranim" — some say [they are] mules. "ha-ramakhim" — these are mares; and so too in the Arabic language (leshon Yishmael), whose structure mostly follows the pattern of the Holy Tongue [Hebrew]. And the offspring of mares are stronger than the offspring of she-donkeys.

The questions: Why did he send couriers on horses, whereas Haman sent them on foot? "And he sent them by horses" — either because [couriers sent on foot] would grow weary from the road, or because meanwhile the Jews were in great distress, and he hastened on their behalf, out of [their] distress and anguish.

"And he wrote in the name of king Ahasuerus, and sealed it with the king's ring" — It is not stated here as it is written above (3:12), "it was written and sealed with the king's ring." For above, since they [Haman and his scribes] did not do this of their own will, but only because it had been decreed upon them by the king, therefore it is written "it was written and sealed" — that is, against their will, not willingly. But here they acted from their own knowledge and will, in order to save a nation, as has already been explained. Therefore it is written "and he wrote in the name of the king, and sealed it with the king's ring," and it is not written in the passive [nif'al] form, which implies that it was done against their will. It also appears that the intent above, in saying "it was written and sealed," is that the king did not know of this — for [Haman] was required to obtain permission again at the actual time of the deed, and this he did not do, as we said above. Therefore it is written that it "was written and sealed with the king's ring" (above, 3:12), but the king did not know — though it was not proper that it be done in this way. Whereas here it is written "and he wrote and sealed," for certainly everything, even the act of writing, was done with the king's knowledge. Only, there is no reason at all to say that had Ahasuerus known of this he would have protested against it, as we said above, that Ahasuerus hated Israel even more than Haman did, as was explained above.

With their booty to be taken. As was written in the first [letters], but they did not lay their hands upon the spoils, for they showed everyone that this was not done for the sake of money.

Questions: Haman said "to destroy... on one day, and to plunder their spoil," implying that the plundering would take place afterward, whereas Mordechai said "and to take their spoil for a prey, on one day," implying that the plundering, too, would take place on that very day. Now, as for why Haman said in his decree "to destroy, to kill... on one day, and to plunder their spoil," while Mordechai said, "and to take their spoil for a prey, on one day" — in truth, Mordechai wanted the Jews not to take any of the spoil at all, for it would not be to their glory that it should appear as though their primary intent was to plunder spoil and take booty. But since the later letters were written in such a way as to clarify and add to what was lacking in the earlier ones, they were necessarily unable to subtract anything from what was written in the earlier ones, but only to add to them — for a writ of the king cannot be revoked. Therefore he was compelled to write in his letters "and to take their spoil for a prey," so as not to create any deficiency in the king's decree. And he was clever in this: he altered the wording to write that the destruction and the plundering would take place on one day. And he knew this: that since he had granted them permission to take spoil only on one day — the thirteenth day, which is the day designated for taking vengeance upon their enemies — Israel would certainly not abandon their primary purpose, of taking vengeance against the enemies of Hashem, for the sake of the spoil, and by this they would understand that they had been warned not to take anything at all from the spoil. But Haman, had he decreed that the spoil-taking be only on one day, knew that everyone would rush headlong toward the spoil and not carry out the destruction. Therefore he commanded that on the thirteenth day they should not plunder, but only kill, and the spoil-taking would come afterward.

"their little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey, upon one day in all the provinces of the king" (verses 11-12) — whereas regarding Haman's letter it is written (above, 3:13), "the little ones and women, upon one day... and to take the spoil of them for a prey." For above, [the verse] meant to say that Haman's intent against them was to bring about their complete destruction, for Haman wanted to destroy, kill, and cause to perish all the Jews. And since it all happened "upon one day," this is complete destruction, for a partial annihilation is not complete destruction. And the completeness of the destruction does not depend on the taking of their spoil for a prey, for that was not his intent. Therefore it is written "the little ones and women, upon one day... and to take the spoil of them for a prey," for [the killing of] the little ones and women is the complete annihilation. But here the main intent was to make public what they had done to their enemies, and all of it was in order to nullify the first letters. Therefore it is written "their little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey," for taking their spoil for a prey is a greater publicizing. And we have also explained this above. And furthermore, regarding Israel there is a great distinction between them and their property, for they themselves are the essential thing, whereas their property is only something that serves the needs they require. Therefore [the verse] made a division and distinction between them and their property, and therefore it says "and to take the spoil of them for a prey" at the end, by itself. But regarding the nations, they and their property are all one thing, for they too were created to serve Israel. Therefore it mentions the property together with them, and says "their little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey" [together], and this is correct. "to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, etc." (verse 11) — Because the Jews are scattered and separated among the nations, they therefore need to gather together if they wish to take action. But above (3:13), where it writes that every people and province would kill the Jews, they do not need to gather together, for they are already together in a group. And it says "to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life," to say that this — their killing of their enemies — is called "standing for their life." And do not say that all they needed was to have the letters rescinded, and that they need not kill their enemies among them, for what purpose would there be in their killing their enemies? To this it answers "to stand for their life," for the killing of their enemies was only a matter of standing for their life. For when Israel is in exile among the nations, if they have an enemy such as these, who are of the seed of Amalek the Agagite — since he is a persecutor of Israel, and they [Amalek] are always standing ready to destroy Israel — therefore, had they remained as they were now, Haman would have wanted to destroy them. All the more so, since afterward they would think that the Jews had risen against them to take revenge upon them, because they had wanted to destroy them, and they would always be scheming to bring them down. Therefore it says "and to stand for their life." And there are those who have elaborated on this question at great length: what did Esther see, that she requested this — that the Jews should kill among them — and why was it not enough for her to have the letters annulled, so that the Jews would be as they had been originally, before Haman came to destroy them? But this question has no substance, for this is why Esther said "and to stand for their life," as we have said. And apart from this, [these enemies] were Amalek, and Israel had been commanded concerning them to blot out his name from the world (Deuteronomy 25:19), and King Saul lost his kingdom because he gave Amalek a remnant [allowed some to survive] (I Samuel 15:28) — and now would they give Amalek a remnant, when he had fallen into their hand? And the Torah said (Exodus 17:14), "Write this for a memorial in the book, etc." — the verse hinted also at the deed of this Megillah, that it is to blot out his name from the world.

Questions: Mordechai said "in all the provinces," whereas Haman did not mention this. Also, Mordechai made known that the destruction and plunder would take place throughout all the king's provinces, whereas Haman concealed this — for he was afraid that, were it known to the officials that this was a comprehensive decree, they would show pity and refrain from destroying an entire nation. Therefore he wanted each one to suppose that the decree applied only to his own province. Mordechai, however, wanted the opposite: that they should know that the lot had been overturned for the Jews into joy and gladness in all the provinces.

"upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar" (verse 12) — As to why [the day] waited until the thirteenth of the month of Adar: because we have already said that the matter of this Megillah was of such a character that it was overturned upon the persecutor. Therefore, since he had planned to destroy the Jews on the thirteenth of the month of Adar (above, 3:13), it was overturned upon him, so that they were killed on the thirteenth of Adar. And as they instituted in the blessing (Asher Heini) [the Purim piyut], "for Haman's lot was turned into our lot" — from this you see that the lot was turned upon him. And this matter is exceedingly wondrous and deep in wisdom, and we will explain it further.

The terms. An explicit letter.

"The copy" — already explained above.

"and that the Jews should be ready against this day" (verse 13) — Why did it need to say "and to be ready against this day," and what does this add? Rather, he means to say that this is a command: that they should be prepared for this day. So that the Jews would not say, "If we do not wish to stand up for our lives, we may refrain from doing so." Therefore it says "and to be ready" — that they should be prepared for this, to kill them. For if the Jews were to leave them alone, [their enemies] would say that the king had given [permission] to kill them, and because of this they would come to rebel against the king. Therefore they were commanded to kill their enemies, so that none of them would remain, and so that they would not remain enemies to the king within his kingdom, nor wreak vengeance upon him. And for this reason it says "to be ready against this day" — meaning that they should kill them specifically on this day, not before this day and not after this day. And likewise, "ready for this day" implies that they should be prepared for the appointed day, which is the thirteenth of Adar, and not that they should be killing them over the course of several days, with no publicity at all given to this matter in all the king's provinces. And it was intended that this matter be given publicity, for the reason we have explained. It is written "atudim" (he-goats) and read "atidim" (ready). For he means to say that they would prepare themselves in advance of the one who would go before them and at their head, like the he-goats (atudim) that go at the head of the flock. And nobles are called "atudim," as it is written in Isaiah (14:9), "all the he-goats of the earth (kol atudei aretz)." And Radak wrote that the nobles are called "atudim" because they go before the people like he-goats before the flock, therefore it is written "atudim." And it is read "atidim" [ready], meaning that those who would go before them like he-goats would be made ready for them. And this matter is fundamental: that those who go before them would prepare themselves, and for this reason they would be together when they came against their enemies, and it would not be each one by himself doing whatever he wished — for this requires that they be joined together. And especially for Israel, that they should be as one, for then the Divine Presence (Shechinah) is with them. Therefore it is written below (9:15), "and the Jews assembled (vayikahalu)," meaning that they had a gathering and assembly together, and then the Divine Presence was with them.

Rushed. They hastened them to act swiftly, because they had no time, for they had to get ahead of the first couriers to overtake them.

Questions: Why does it add here "hastened"? "The couriers, riders of swift steeds, the achashteranim, went out hastened" — for they did not know why they were being sent out a second time. Mordechai was also clever in not having the decree issued in Shushan until the couriers had already gone out, for the same reason that Haman, too, had been wary of — lest, once this became known, the enemies of the Jews set up pleaders before the king to have the decree changed.

"The couriers, riders of the royal steeds (rechesh) of the achashteranim, etc." (verse 14). It is not written "the couriers on horses, etc.," because it comes to say that the couriers are those who are "riders of the rechesh of the achashteranim" — meaning that they hurry to run and are skilled at this. It comes only to say that they are skilled at riding the rechesh, and that these know how to run faster. It does not mean that they were now riding upon rechesh rather than [ordinary] horses; rather, it comes to say that since they are riders of the rechesh of the achashteranim, the couriers were riders of the rechesh. Even though this was already written above (verse 10), here it would only have needed to write "the couriers went out hastened," and it would automatically follow that these are the couriers mentioned above. [It specifies this] so that you should not mistakenly say that specifically those who ran on foot needed to go out hastened by the king's command, but those on horses did not need to go out hastened by the king's command, since riders on horses are able to travel very far. Therefore it wrote "the couriers, riders of the rechesh," to indicate that these too went out alarmed and hastened by the king's command.

And a cloak of linen. A wrap of linen, a shawl in which to enwrap oneself.

"ve-takhrikh" ("and a wrap") — this term is known from the words of our ancient sages, of blessed memory; and the meaning is like a cloak in which one is wrapped. "butz" (fine linen) — it is [the same as] "bad" (linen), a type of flax from Egypt, which is thin and precious. "and the city of Shushan" — for the Jews were there.

"And Mordecai went out, etc." — Behold, we wrote above that since He, may He be blessed, does not withhold the reward of any creature, He therefore gave Mordecai, in this world, a taste of the fruit of his deeds. And corresponding to his going out into the city square clothed in sackcloth, He brought him royal apparel that the king himself had worn; and corresponding to the ashes, a royal crown was placed upon his head; and corresponding to his going out on foot, he rode upon the horse the king had ridden. And corresponding to his crying out with a great and bitter cry, "and proclaim before him," etc. But indeed, there is no doubt that his joy was not wholly sweet to him, and all of these were to him like singing songs to a heavy heart, at every time that he saw Israel still in the midst of distress, for they had not yet been saved — and how much more so according to our Rabbis, of blessed memory, who said that he returned to his sackcloth and his fasting. And furthermore, his greatness was only transient for him, and also, regarding the splendor of a crown in place of ashes — he did not actually have a crown; only a horse, of which it is said that a royal crown was on the king's head when he rode upon it. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, desired that when Judah is saved and Israel dwells securely, through the strength of the deeds of him who turned and brought Israel back, even the One who had struck him would give him a taste of the very essence of the full fruit of the greatness of his deeds, at the time Israel was rescued from distress — for then it would be sweet to him, more than before the salvation of Israel had sprung forth from the hand of their enemies; and he would also have enduring greatness and an actual crown of splendor upon his head, in place of ashes. And also that which he had not merited then, in exchange for the tearing of his garments that he tore, as we said above — since it was through his ancestor that the tribes of Israel tore their garments together — but now, with Israel's going out from the midst of the total reversal, everything was given to him as well, in exchange for all his humiliation, in a complete and perfect manner. In place of his going out clothed in sackcloth in the city square, now he went out from before the king in royal apparel; and also the splendor of a great golden crown in place of ashes of disgrace; and in place of his going out with torn garments, uncovered on account of the tears, he went out wrapped in a robe of fine linen and purple — that is, a garment that wraps around him — and he was clothed in honor and majesty. And corresponding to his outcry, now also the whole city of Shushan rang out with sounds of jubilation over his greatness; and corresponding to the bitterness of his heart, there was now also joy — and this is the meaning of "shouted and was glad." And by attributing the matter to the city, he intended further that also, corresponding to "and the city of Shushan was bewildered" (3:15), it was transformed into "the city of Shushan shouted and was glad." And this is as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said: that the city of Shushan had been bewildered, for the gentiles were rising up against Israel and saying to each and every one, "Tomorrow I will kill you and take your property" — and Hashem transformed it so that, on the contrary, they now rejoiced to see the greatness of Israel, and the city of Shushan was "jubilant and glad," for Hashem gave Mordecai favor in the eyes of all the gentiles dwelling in the land, and they exulted in his greatness. Now, one might have thought to imagine that the city of Shushan being "jubilant and glad" applied only to the Jews who were in Shushan, but not to the gentiles. Therefore it says "to the Jews" with the cantillation note of a revi'i (a disjunctive accent), as if raising the voice and saying: this alone was not all that they had; rather, the Jews had something even greater than this — namely, light and gladness and joy and honor.

Questions: "And the city of Shushan" implies aside from the Jews. And it recounts that Mordechai went forth, in order to make known the righteousness of Mordechai — that he accepted no greatness upon himself until his heart was fully assured that there was light and salvation for his unfortunate brethren; only then did he go forth in royal apparel, and not before. And it recounts that the city of Shushan rejoiced, to fulfill the words of the sage (Proverbs 29:2), "When the righteous increase, the people rejoice" — that even all the peoples rejoiced at the rise of Mordechai the righteous.

"And Mordecai went forth, etc." (verse 15). The verse enumerates five garments in the royal apparel: "blue" is one, "and white" two, "a crown of gold" three, "and a robe of fine linen" four, "and purple" five. For a garment of honor is fittingly composed of five [elements], since the garment covers all four sides of a person, plus a crown upon his head. Therefore there were five kinds of garments, and each side is distinct, one not being like another; and so there are here five separate garments, one not like another. And because the Shechinah hovers over Benjamin — as it is written (Deuteronomy 33:12), "He hovers over him all the day" — and the Shechinah is a garment of honor to him, as it is written (I Chronicles 12:18), "and the spirit clothed Amasai," and (Esther 5:1), "and Esther clothed herself in royalty," meaning she clothed herself in the holy spirit. And there is no honor greater than this; therefore [Joseph] gave Benjamin "five changes of garments" (Genesis 45:22), corresponding to how Mordecai would in the future go forth in five garments of honor. And in the Gemara (Megillah 16b): "The Jews had light and gladness, and joy and honor." Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: "light" — this is Torah, as it says (Proverbs 6:23), "For the commandment is a lamp, and the Torah is light." "Gladness" — this is the festival day, as it says (Deuteronomy 16:14), "and you shall rejoice in your festival." "And joy" — Rabbi Elazar said, this is circumcision, as it says (Psalms 119:162), "I rejoice at Your word." "And honor" — these are tefillin, as it says (Deuteronomy 28:10), "And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of Hashem is called upon you, and they shall be afraid of you." And it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says, these are the tefillin worn on the head. And the explanation of this matter: when [Israel] prevailed over Haman, Israel merited a very supreme level, and they merited the Torah. Even though they already had the Torah, they merited to be attached to the intellectual virtues of the Torah. And prior to this, even though they had the Torah, they had an impediment — namely Amalek, who nullifies Israel's attachment to the Torah. Therefore Israel merited at that time complete attachment to the level of the Torah. And likewise all these [items] that were mentioned: for when they prevailed over the power of Haman, they became completely attached to the level of the festival day, and to the level of circumcision, and to the level of tefillin. And the Torah is the first [level] for a person to become attached to this virtue; and although the level of the Torah is superior above all, nevertheless, because it pertains to the intellect, and the intellect is the highest [faculty], it is therefore first to receive that level, which is the Torah. And afterward, the level of the festival day, which pertains to the soul of a person, for joy belongs to the soul, and it is a further level to which they merited, and the festival day is a holy day. And afterward, circumcision, which is upon the body of a person, and it is a holy commandment, for behold it is written (Jeremiah 11:15), "and the holy flesh has passed from you" — this refers to circumcision (Menachot 53b). And so they instituted in the blessing: "and He sealed His offspring with the sign of the holy covenant." Behold, these are three commandments to which Israel merited, all of them holy levels, each one higher than the one before: they merited the Torah, for the Torah is intellectual, and the intellect receives it. And the festival day belongs to the soul, for the joy of the festival day belongs to the soul, and it is a further level. And circumcision belongs to the body, and since there is holiness for the body, it is a further level still. And the tefillin, to which they merited, are of even greater holiness, for in the tefillin the name of Hashem is entirely upon the person, and they are the splendor that is over everything, and therefore the tefillin are over everything. And by the power of the tefillin comes the attachment by which Israel is completely attached to Him, blessed be He, and by this they were victorious over Amalek, as has been explained above at length. The general principle of the matter: in this verse are hinted the holy levels which Israel merited when they were victorious over Haman, who is of the seed of Amalek, up to the final level, that the name of Hashem was called upon them. And understand these matters which have been explained here, and above in the introduction it was also explained; see there.

"The Jews had light" — the meaning is "joy" (tzohalah), following the sense of "light": like a person sitting in darkness who [suddenly] goes out into the light of the world — which is a reversal happening without an intermediary. So it was for Israel.

"The Jews had, etc." — One must pay attention: it cannot be avoided to ask whether the word "to the Jews" includes also all who were in every city and province, or refers to those in Shushan alone. If it includes everyone, how can it then say afterward, "that was in every city and province, etc." (v. 17), which indicates that until now it was not speaking of them? And if the second verse also speaks generally, including those of Shushan, how can it say "the place where the king's word and his decree reached," for such a description does not rightly apply to Shushan, since it was from there that the king's word and decree went forth from the king, for his house was there? Moreover, it would have been proper to include Shushan and say, "and to all the Jews who were in every city and province there was light and gladness, etc." Furthermore, what is the meaning of the fact that in this verse, which states "there was light and gladness, etc.," no mention is made of the feast and holiday mentioned in the second verse; and in the second, no mention is made of light, etc., yet "gladness and joy," stated in the first, are repeated again in the verse that follows? And if it says "to the Jews, etc." referring to those in Shushan alone, one must understand why they are mentioned separately, with the description of their joy altered — one is not like the other: here "light," etc., and not "feast and holiday," and the reverse in the second verse. Furthermore, why is it not said of Shushan that the people of the land were becoming Jews, as in the other provinces of the king? And furthermore, why is "honor" not stated of them as it is of Shushan, where it says "joy and honor"? Indeed, we have established above that in all the provinces of the king two kinds of letters were sent, differing one from the other. The first kind were sealed documents for a law to be given openly in every city and province, that they were to be prepared for this day, without it being known for what purpose they were designated. The second kind were letters to all the officials of the provinces, an explicit writing to destroy, etc., on that appointed day. But in Shushan, the law itself was given explicitly, to destroy them, as it is written, "and the copy of the writ of the law which was given in Shushan to destroy them was given to him" — as mentioned, and the reason for this was explained above, correctly and truly. Therefore, with the reversal of the letters, they were able to send a copy of a law to be given openly to all the peoples, by proclamation, that the Jews were to be prepared for this day to avenge themselves upon their enemies — for no disgrace would attach to the king for reversing his mind in his decrees in this case. But in Shushan the law had been given from the start, made thoroughly clear and explicit, to destroy them. Therefore, when the decree was reversed and a law was given in Shushan that the Jews were to be prepared for this day to avenge themselves upon their enemies, would this not raise a warning-sign in the mind of every man of Israel, lest the multitude of the people rise up to uphold the first law that had been given to destroy them, saying that the law of Media and Persia is not to be altered — and the nations would wickedly stretch out their hands against Israel, and the king would be unable to save them, since they would merely be carrying out the king's own laws? For this reason he acted wondrously in displaying signs of these things before the eyes of all, that it was the king's will that they should not stretch out a hand against the Jews — for all his desire and every wish was to act wisely for Israel's good. And this is shown in that he gave Haman's house to Esther, and removed his ring which he had taken from Haman and gave it to Mordechai, and Mordechai was also set over Haman's house, and he went out from before the king in royal apparel, etc. Therefore, the gladness and joy that came to the Jews of Shushan — who rejoiced over the signs of the annulment of the decree and the downfall of Haman — did not yet extend to a feast or a holiday; nor did the fear of the Jews fall upon the people of the land so essentially that they became Jews, but only that they showed them honor and respect. With this we come to the explanation of the verses, and shall reconcile them according to our approach. It says "there was light" and not "there were," for there are four things involved, and this is because it happened to the Jews who were in Shushan as follows: like those who are in the blackness of night and darkness, watching for the morning — and the morning brings light before the sun goes forth in its might, and they rejoice to see the existence of light; and a little more, when the sun rises, they rejoice then even more; and when the sun goes out over the earth, then they exult with even greater joy. So indeed it happened to the Jews who were in Shushan in those days at that time. For those in all the other provinces of the king — their darkness had not grown as great, because the matters were sealed and closed until the appointed time, as mentioned, since all the nations were keeping watch over vain things for that day, when they were destined to ask of all the officials of every city and province, who would testify and tell all that was found written in their letters as to what they were destined for on that day; and also to the Jews it was given like the words of the sealed book. Thus their darkness was slight, and their remedy sprang forth quickly, for before they could understand their evil plight, their good tidings arrived, and a law was given openly to all the peoples that the Jews were to avenge themselves on their enemies, without shame — and it was to them like one who sits in a dark house at noon, for upon going out from it he sees a great light all at once. But those who were in Shushan were like those sitting in darkness and the shadow of death, and like the light of morning that shines forth gradually, line by line — so it was: when the law was given in Shushan at first, it was stated clearly and plainly that they were to be destroyed, openly, before all its inhabitants; and therefore also when the decree was reversed and a law was given to the Jews to avenge themselves on their enemies, the hand of the multitude of the people of the land was still stretched out to hold fast to the stronghold of the law of Media and Persia, that it is not to be altered, and they would say that the Jews were to be destroyed as the law had been given at first, for even the king would be unable to remedy this for them, since they would merely be carrying out the king's own laws. In this way, they did not rejoice fully at the second proclamation, for their fear was still in their hearts of the people's uprising; but the assurance of their redemption came to them gradually, line by line, like the light of morning that goes on shining little by little until the day is established. And this is the meaning of "to the Jews" — those who were in Shushan, of whom it speaks — there was at first only light, which illuminated their darkness, but they had not yet reached the category of gladness, out of the fear in their hearts, for they had not yet been purified of their dread. And this is why it says "there was light," for the last three had not yet come; and afterward, "and gladness," etc. This is because, first, through the honor and greatness that was done to Mordechai — the garment and the horse upon which the king had ridden, and they made him ride through the street of the city and proclaimed before him thus, etc. — then there came to them light out of the darkness of their dread's gloom, and they began a little to open the eyes of assurance. And afterward, when they saw Haman hanging on the tree that he had prepared for Mordechai, then their assurance grew, and they reached the category of gladness. And afterward, when the king gave Haman's house to Esther, and Esther set Mordechai over Haman's house, then their assurance reached the category of joy, meaning that after all those in Shushan saw all these signs, they did not dare in their hearts to raise hand or foot against Israel, for they saw that the king loved them. And after these three, "and Mordechai went out from before the king in royal apparel, etc." — then, beyond the fact that their hearts no longer intended evil against Israel, they also began to honor them, and this is the fourth level, namely the word "and honor." But they still had not reached the category of the fear of the Jews falling upon them, as it did in the other provinces of the king; for there they feared genuine fear, but in Shushan there was no fear, and this is for the reason stated — that at the time of Haman's evil, a law had been given in Shushan to destroy them, unlike in the other provinces of the king. Therefore in Shushan their assurance did not reach the category of making a feast and a holiday, as in every other city and province, for the reason we have written — that concerning all these four levels, the faintheartedness in their hearts had not yet been cleared away, because of the law that had been given in Shushan to destroy them, as mentioned. And therefore the fear of the Jews did not fall in Shushan so as to make people become Jews, as it did among the peoples of the land in the other provinces of the king. And after speaking of the matter of the Jews who were in Shushan, it says, "and in every province and province, the place where the king's word" — that is, that which was in the letters to the officials, to assemble and stand for their lives — "and his decree reached" — that is, the copy of the writ for a law to be given, that they were to be prepared for this day to avenge themselves on their enemies — they had a feast and a holiday. For that which had been decreed at first, openly, to all the peoples, was not to destroy them but only that they were to be prepared for this day, stated generally — unlike in Shushan, where a law had been given openly to destroy them. And they had gladness over the king's word in the letters, to stand for their lives, to save themselves from those who came to kill them; and joy over the law that had been given openly to avenge themselves on their enemies, even upon those who did not come to kill them — as the reason for the distinction was written above. And by this, on account of the gladness they made a feast, and on account of the joy they made a holiday. And this is why it separates between "joy" and "feast" with the word "to the Jews." And this is in accordance with what our Sages, of blessed memory, said, which we mentioned above: that the distress of Israel came sealed — "that they were to be prepared for this day" — without their knowing why; but when the good came, it came explicitly — "and to be, etc., avenged of their enemies." And this applies only in every city and province other than Shushan; for there, the matter of the evil deed was stated explicitly, as it is written, "and the copy of the writ of the law, etc., to destroy them, was given to him." And therefore there, Israel feared a fear greater than in all the other provinces of the king. And the reason for the deficiency that afflicted the people of Shushan in this great storm, more than the rest, and why their joy was not wholly complete as quickly as that of the rest of the Jews, is surely this: that they had come to the table of King Ahasuerus, to the feast and holiday he made for his beloved ones, and had enjoyed his banquet. Therefore Hashem also withheld complete joy from them, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. And according to our approach we learn the greatness of His blessed kindness and the abundance of good to the House of Israel, that we are distinguished from all the nations of the earth: for the children of Israel, in all their distress of facing destruction, etc., not one of them, God forbid, exchanged his honor out of fear of the evil, but rather there was great mourning, fasting, weeping, and lamentation. But when the decree was reversed, in every province many of the people of the land became Jews and exchanged their religion — even though, apart from the decree that was to take effect on the appointed day, from that time on they had also been beaten and pursued by the nations, as our Sages of blessed memory said concerning "the city of Shushan was perplexed" (3:15) — that the Persian would strike a Hebrew man wherever he found him and say to him, "Tomorrow I will kill you and take your money" — and despite all this they clung to their King and to His Torah. Not such is the portion allotted to the nations of the earth; rather, in every province, since the Jews had a feast and a holiday, without any distress to the nation mentioned, many of the people of the land became Jews, because only through inaction — not actively harming them — did their fear fall upon the nations, without there being upon them a decree of death, except against those who sought their harm alone. And in saying "the fear of the Jews fell," rather than saying "they feared the Jews," perhaps the intent is to say that it was not only those of the seed of Amalek and their like — who thought that Israel would kill them — who became Jews, but rather this happened generally; and this can only be because Heaven cast dread and fear upon them, as in the matter of "and the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the field" (Genesis 9:2). And this is why it says "fell," for there is no "falling" except from above to below, and this was from Heaven above. Or one might say that "the fear of the Jews fell" means that the fear which the Jews had, Hashem sent it into Jacob, and it fell upon the nations mentioned. And in the Gemara it is said: "The Jews had light" — this is the Torah, as it says, "For a mitzvah is a candle and the Torah is light" (Proverbs 6:23). "And gladness" — this is Yom Tov, as it says, "and you shall rejoice in your festival" (Deuteronomy 16:14). "And joy" — this is circumcision, as it says, "I rejoice at Your word" (Psalms 119:162). "And honor" — these are the tefillin worn on the head, as it says, "and all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of Hashem is called upon you, and they shall fear you" (Deuteronomy 28:10). One must consider: had Israel, until this point, been lacking Torah, Yom Tov, circumcision, and the tefillin worn on the head? Furthermore, did they have nothing besides these? And where, then, are all the six hundred and thirteen commandments? Moreover, Yom Tov, circumcision, and the tefillin worn on the head are included within the general category of Torah. Furthermore, if it is so that they had these four things, why does it not say "there were" rather than "there was"? And furthermore, how is there an allusion to circumcision in the words "I rejoice at Your word" — and likewise, how is it derived from the verse "and they shall see, etc." that "and honor" refers to the tefillin worn on the head? Now, before arriving at the intent of the passage as a whole, let us explain what pertains to understanding its plain meaning in the statement that "joy" refers to circumcision, as it says "I rejoice, etc." This is because one of the methods by which the Aggadah is expounded is through a gezeirah shavah (verbal analogy), just as it says "gladness — this is Yom Tov," by gezeirah shavah from "and you shall rejoice in your festival." So here it says "joy," and elsewhere it says "I rejoice" — just as the "joy" spoken of there is circumcision, for it is said there, "like one who finds great spoil" — and which mitzvah did he find and rejoice over? This is circumcision — as our Sages of blessed memory said regarding the psalm "To the conductor, on the eighth" (Psalm 12): when David entered the bathhouse, he saw himself naked of the commandments, etc.; he looked upon the mark of circumcision and rejoiced, and said, "To the conductor, on the eighth" — because it, circumcision, was given on the eighth day. Or it may be as our Sages of blessed memory said: "I rejoice at Your word" — this refers to circumcision, as it says, "for they have kept Your word" (Deuteronomy 33:9) — just as there it means circumcision, since it says, "and they observed Your covenant," so too here it means circumcision. And it may now be said accordingly: here it says "joy," and elsewhere it says "I rejoice" — just as there it means circumcision, since it says "Your word," so too here it means circumcision. And there is support for this from the numerology, for "amratecha" (Your word) in the reduced numbering equals thirteen, the same as the numerical value of "milah" (circumcision) in the reduced numbering, corresponding to the thirteen covenants that were established over it. Now let us come to the general intent of the passage. Our Sages of blessed memory found it difficult to understand the statement "the Jews had light" according to its plain sense, for it cannot be that light was withheld from none of them at all; and likewise the statement "and gladness," since it had already been stated generally, "and the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad." Furthermore, it says "there was light" and not "there were," though there are four things mentioned. And furthermore, if "light" means the absence of the darkness of distress, this is already included in "gladness" and "joy." Therefore they determined that it alludes to four things: Torah, etc. This is because He, may He be blessed, elevated them in four stages. The first: from death to life. The second: that what their enemies wished to do to them was overturned, and they, the Jews, did the same to their enemies. The third: that not only was life given to them, but also freedom from servitude — for there was room to say that surely a king's decree, once issued, does not return void, and even if the decree were annulled with respect to death, it would remain in force with respect to servitude. The fourth: that the fear of the Jews should even fall upon the nations, so that they would honor them. From where did they merit these four good levels, each one higher than the other? Do not wonder, for indeed they had four merits in hand, and these are what stood for them. The first, "light" — this is the Torah, for it is what gives life, since it is a tree of life; and it is also what stood before Him, may He be blessed, at the time the destruction was decreed, as our Sages of blessed memory said in Midrash Chazit (Shir HaShirim Rabbah), that she, the Torah, put on the garments of widowhood and cried out bitterly. And regarding the second — that they saw the death of their enemies, and Hashem gladdened them with the death of the wicked Haman who sought their lives — the merit of the joy of Yom Tov, in that they observed the festivals, stood for them in this; for this reason Hashem gladdened them, in retribution against the one who cast an evil eye upon their festivals, and He made for them a new festival. This is drawn from what our Sages of blessed memory said: that this was Haman's accusation to Ahasuerus — that they, the Jews, were casting a curse over the money of the world on the festivals and holy days, saying, "today is Sabbath," "today is Passover." And our Rabbis of blessed memory said that then Michael, the great prince, came and said before the Holy One, blessed be He: "See, Your children are being accused only because they observe Your Torah and Your festivals!" And the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: "By your life, I have not forsaken them and I will not forsake them, etc." Behold, the merit of the joy of the festivals stood for them against Haman. And the third level that they merited — namely, having also freedom from servitude — was through the merit of circumcision, which is the seal of the sign of the holy covenant, the seal that we are servants to the Holy One, blessed be He; it is this that stood for us so that we should not be servants to any masters other than Him, may He be blessed. And the fourth — namely, that out of their fear of the Jews they showed them honor — was through the merit of that which is called "yekar" (honor), namely the tefillin worn on the head, of which it is said, "and they shall fear you"; for it was out of their dread that they showed them honor. This is because the honor that they showed them was on account of their fear, as it says, "for the fear of the Jews fell upon them," and regarding the tefillin it says, "and they shall fear you." And this is the meaning of "the Jews had, etc." And since the last three all derive from the Torah, it therefore does not say "there were" but "there was," for they all derived from it, the Torah. It is also possible that after speaking of the honor that Mordechai acquired through his complete repentance and all his humility, the text says: "and what did Israel acquire in exchange for their fasts and their repentance?" To this it responds: "the Jews had light, etc.," meaning it was enough for them that they acquired four good acquisitions: Torah, Yom Tov, circumcision, and the tefillin worn on the head. This is as our Sages of blessed memory said in tractate Shabbat: "'and they stood at the foot of the mountain' — this teaches that He overturned the mountain upon them like an inverted cask, and said: if you accept the Torah, good; and if not, there shall be your burial place." And they raised a difficulty in the Gemara: if so, this constitutes a strong protest against the Torah! And they resolved it: they returned and confirmed it in the days of Ahasuerus, as it says, "they confirmed and accepted" — "they confirmed" what they had already accepted. And our Sages of blessed memory explained this statement in Tanchuma, Parashat Noach, that what they were unwilling to accept at Sinai, until the days of Ahasuerus, was the Oral Torah. And by this it is said that "the Jews had light" — this is the Torah — meaning that which was not so until that time, for they had not accepted it except under coercion; and the implication is that the Oral Torah gave them life. This is as our Sages of blessed memory said, of the disciples of Mordechai, that there were twenty-two thousand engaged in the study of the Talmud, and their merit stood for the people. Or, as we have written above from the Midrash, that the Torah put on sackcloth before the Holy One, blessed be He, and Elijah came and told the matter to Mordechai, and from there it later became known to Israel; therefore, with a pleasant countenance, they accepted all its parts. And they also had a new holiday, namely the days of Purim. This is drawn from what our Sages of blessed memory said: that when Haman accused Israel regarding their festivals, He, may He be blessed, said: "By your life, on your account another festival will be made" — this is the day of Purim, a feast and a holiday. And this too came about because they saw that He, may He be blessed, brought down the one who cast an evil eye upon their festivals. And likewise, seeing that not only life, but also freedom from being servants, was given to them, they strengthened themselves from then on even more regarding the commandment of circumcision, saying that they are servants to Hashem, sealed with His seal, and to no other — and that this merit had stood for them. And they also acquired firm resolve regarding the commandment of tefillin on the head, and were not ashamed before the eyes of the nations, for they saw a wondrous sign that the fear of the Jews was upon them and that they showed them honor. Therefore they acquired strength regarding that commandment.

And especially for the Jews there was a doubled gladness and joy — openly, and with great honor.

Converting to Judaism. Converting to Judaism.

"reached" (magia) — from an augmented conjugation, yet it functions as an intransitive verb; and similarly "you have attained to royal estate" (higa'at la-malkhut) (Esther 4:14). "became Jews" (mityahadim) — an unusual word. Rabbi Yonah the grammarian said that from this word we learn that the word "turmin" is grammatically correct, for the Yod of "Yehudah" is not a root letter; and here, in the word "mityahadim," the root reappears. He also added and said: "moach" (brain) and "maluach" (salted) are like "your going out" (motza'akha) and "your coming in" (mova'akha) — for it would have been proper for it to be "mevo'akha," but it came according to the pattern of its fellow forms, though he did not say so fully — that is to say, even if the vav of "mova'akha" is an addition, I am not surprised, for the letters alef-heh-vav-yod are found added, whether at the beginning of a word, in the middle, or at the end, and are also sometimes elided — but such is not the case with the mem of "maliach." And the answer regarding the word "turmin" is what our Rabbis of blessed memory said: the language of Scripture is one thing, and the language of the Talmud is another. And it is possible that "mityahadim" means that they were affiliating themselves with the tribe of Judah (Yehudah) — and so it would be grammatically sound.

"And in every province, and in every city" etc. — The structure of the verse is: the place where the king's commandment — that is, what he sent to the officers in the letters — came, was to assemble and stand for their lives; and "his decree" refers to the decree that was openly proclaimed, explicitly, to all the peoples, that the Jews were destined to take revenge upon their enemies — as was explained above, very well, regarding the distinctions between the letters: that the king's commandment written in the letters was only to stand for their lives, to be saved from those who rose up against them — this being the king's commandment written in the letters to the officers, as above. Over this there was gladness. And over the fact that, beyond this, they would also take revenge on their enemies — which is the decree that was given, of which it says "and his decree" — there was joy, in addition to the gladness. And Scripture does not write "and a feast," with a connecting vav, to parallel "and a holiday," but rather a bare "feast," without the connecting vav. This is because gladness results in a feast, while from the joy over the decree that was given results a holiday. The rest of the matter of the verse was explained above, in the preceding chapter. And in the Gemara, Rabbi Chanina bar Papa opened his introduction to this chapter with the following: "'You have caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water' (Psalms 66:12) — 'fire' refers to the days of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, and 'water' to the days of Pharaoh; 'and You brought us out to abundance' refers to the days of Haman." End of citation. Now, it is fitting to take note: in saying "You have caused men to ride over our heads," he expounds nothing at all from it; and furthermore, he mentions our distress in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and in the days of Pharaoh, but not the salvation with which Hashem saved us in their days — while regarding the matter of Haman, he mentions the salvation but not the distress. And if his entire intent concerns what happened in the days of Haman, why does he mention those who preceded him? Indeed, in the book Chavatzelet HaSharon we wrote a homiletical teaching derived from the Zohar, which is this: one who is trapped in a pit among dangerous predators such as lions, snakes, and the like, or one who is cast among inanimate things that kill by their very nature — such as coming through fire or water — is not comparable to one given into the hands of a person possessing free will. For behold, in the case of the first kinds of danger, it is easy in the eyes of Hashem to save from them a righteous person, in accordance with his righteousness; but salvation from the hand of a wicked man is precious in the eyes of Hashem, blessed be He. For indeed, one of His attributes, blessed be He, is not to remove a person's free will from anything he wishes to do — for otherwise, reward and punishment would be nullified. And this was indeed what was in Reuben's heart when he said to his brothers, "Shed no blood, cast him into the pit" (Genesis 37:22) — for what benefit was there in his remedy, seeing that a snake or a scorpion might dwell in the pit? As our Sages of blessed memory said on the words "the pit was empty, there was no water in it" — did he not know that there was no water in it? Rather, it teaches that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it. But Reuben's intention was to remove him from under the hand of one possessing free will, and to place him under the power of animals — for from them his rescue would come more easily. And this is the meaning of "in order to rescue him from their hand" (Genesis 37:22) — meaning, that when he said "cast him into the pit," it was only in order to rescue him from the hand of those with free will, so as to surely return him to his father once he was under the power of animals. And with this we come to the matter, which is what was said above: that the feast was instituted because, beyond the fact that He, blessed be He, saved us from our adversaries, He also delivered them into our hands — as is found written throughout in the letters of reversal, "to assemble and stand for their lives," etc. For had it been only the salvation of ourselves, praise (Hallel) would have sufficed, as in the days of Chanukah, or the reading of the Megillah instead — for its reading takes the place of praise, as stated in the Gemara. And let us come to the matter: he said, behold, the salvation in the days of Haman was far greater than the salvation of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the fiery furnace, and the salvation of the infants whom Pharaoh cast into the river. The explanation is that fire and water are not agents of free will, whereas Haman was one who sought to kill by the sword — a man possessing free will. And even so, even had He done nothing for us but save our lives, we would have been obligated to praise the Master of all; yet He made His kindnesses wondrous, doubled and redoubled, in that He also brought their own sword into their own heart. And this is the meaning of: "You have caused," our God, "because of our sins, a man" possessing free will "to ride over our heads" — that is, Haman, from whom it is difficult to be saved. For as for the fact that You saved Hananiah and his companions from the fiery furnace, and those cast into the river in the days of Pharaoh, so that they did not die, as our Sages of blessed memory said — behold, that is not so wondrous, for then "we came through fire and water" that were not agents of free will; and it is not comparable to Your having caused a man possessing free will to ride over our heads, namely Haman. So let it not seem small in Your eyes, Hashem, that You saved us alone, as with the fire in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and as with the water in the days of Pharaoh — but rather also, "You brought us out to abundance," meaning, until our cup was full to overflowing — that is the feast, which is an indication that You, blessed be He, gave even our enemies into our hand, as has been said.

Questions: Regarding Haman it is not written "in every city," but here it adds "in every city." And here it says "and in every city," for the published copy made clear what was to happen, whereas with Haman it was not known what it was, only by rumor, and it was not known in the individual cities, as above.

"And in every province, etc., and many from among the peoples of the land became Jews, etc." (verse 17). This matter is not found in the other redemptions, only here — for this is the defeat of Amalek. Because Amalek causes the oneness of Hashem, blessed be He, to be negated, as it is written (Obadiah 1:21), "And saviors shall go up to judge the mount of Esau, and the kingdom shall be Hashem's, etc." Therefore here, since they felled Amalek, many from among the peoples of the land became Jews, when the power of Haman was nullified. "And many from among the peoples of the land became Jews, etc., for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them" — and in the verse "they gathered themselves together" (below 9:2) it is written, "and no man stood before them, for the fear of them had fallen upon all the peoples." And in the verse (ibid. v. 3), "and all the officials of the provinces raised up the Jews, for the fear of Mordechai had fallen upon them." Scripture comes to say that when Haman was hanged (above 7:10), and the king gave them the power to take revenge upon their enemies, the fear of the Jews fell upon them. And this is fitting, since they had defeated Haman, who was the complete enemy — for each person was afraid to do anything against Israel, lest what happened to Haman happen to him. And the peoples of the land, who do not have that much power, were caused to fear the Jews so completely that they became Jews entirely. For any two nations that are separate — even if they are not enemies — are nevertheless divided, each one against the other. And when the fear of the Jews fell upon them, they became Jews, until there was no longer any opposition to them at all. This is said with regard to the peoples of the land, who accept fear the most. Afterward it speaks of those who have no fear of them, namely the men of valor; regarding them it says (below 9:2) that no man stood before them — the one called "man" [ish] because he is a mighty warrior did not stand before them, out of fear. And the officials of the provinces, who are great and important, of whom one cannot say that they have fear — on the contrary, everyone fears them — regarding this it says (below 9:3) that nevertheless they raised up the Jews, for the fear of Mordechai had fallen upon them. And since the fear of Mordechai fell upon them, even upon the officials of the provinces, this caused all the officials of the provinces to raise them up. Every nation has within it three parts. One part are ordinary people, who are neither important nor mighty — merely ordinary people. Regarding these it says, "and many from among the peoples of the land became Jews," meaning that they attached themselves to them. There is another part who are mighty men of valor, and who do not submit to being under another until another rules over them; regarding this it says (below 9:2), "and no man stood before them, for the fear of them had fallen upon all the peoples" — for "man" [ish] refers to a mighty warrior, therefore it says that "no man stood before them." And there are those who are important in themselves, who are the officials among the people, and with regard to these it is not applicable that others should overpower them, since they are the officials of the province, and the province belongs to them. Regarding these it says (below 9:3) that these officials raised up the Jews, so that the greatness of Israel became recognized by everyone — either they became Jews and attached themselves to them, or the Jews overpowered and ruled over them and they were beneath them, or they raised the Jews up above, until they were over them. You should understand these matters. Know that they merited these three things in the merit of the Patriarchs. For in the merit of Jacob, they became Jews — for those who became Jews accepted the oneness of Hashem, blessed be He, and this was in the merit of Jacob in particular, as stated in Pesachim (56a), that through Jacob Israel accepted His oneness, saying (Deuteronomy 6:4), "Hear, O Israel, Hashem is our God, Hashem is One." This is [the meaning of] "became Jews" [mityahadim] — do not read "Yehudi" [Jew] but rather "Yichudi" [one who professes His unity] (Esther Rabbah 6:2), as was explained above. And corresponding to Isaac, their fear fell upon all the peoples, as it is said (Genesis 31:42), "and the fear of Isaac was with me" — and therefore they merited this, and therefore it says here "the fear of them had fallen upon all the peoples," which is not said anywhere else. And corresponding to Abraham it says (below 9:3), "and the officials of the provinces raised them up," for Abraham is called (Genesis 23:6), "a prince of God are you among us." Therefore, for this reason they merited that the Jews would be raised up, "for the fear of Mordechai had fallen upon them." For even though these officials did not have the fear of Israel upon them, nevertheless the fear of Mordechai was upon them, and because of this they raised up the Jews. The general principle: the affair of Haman caused fear of Israel, and this was from Hashem, blessed be He. This is what they said in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 10:12): "And Mordechai went out in royal apparel, etc." (above, verse 15) — Rabbi Pinchas says: Mordechai reigned over the Jews. Just as the king wears purple, so did Mordechai. Just as the king has a crown, a wreath, on his head, so did Mordechai have "a great golden crown" (ibid.). Just as the king's dread is upon the whole land, so was Mordechai's dread upon them, as it is said (below 9:3), "for the fear of Mordechai had fallen upon them." With this he comes to say that the greatness that Mordechai had was not because the king had elevated him — for if so, his fear would not have fallen upon all the peoples, since that kind of fear does not come from the king. Rather, his greatness was that Hashem, blessed be He, gave him kingship, and therefore his fear fell upon all the peoples. And all this occurred when he reached the level of felling Haman; and because they acquired this supreme rank when Mordechai felled Haman, Mordechai merited to become king — for the king, by virtue of his kingship, has an important, supreme rank. This is what they meant by saying that Mordechai had royal apparel — this indicates divine honor. And he had a royal crown — and this is an utterly supreme rank. For the garment, since it is worn on the body, does not indicate as much divine rank as does the crown, which is on the head, which is utterly transcendent [nivdal] and divine, so much so that his dread lay upon the creatures. For a king who is separate [nivdal] from the people has fear attached to him, and this is called "the dread of the kingship." For two who are partners have no fear of one another. But a king who is separate from the people has fear here by virtue of his kingship, for because he is separate from everyone, there is fear of him. And the crown indicates this, since it is on the head, so that everyone receives fear of him. And all this — when he was victorious over Haman, he acquired these ranks. Understand these matters regarding what Mordechai had. Therefore these are two things: "just as the king wears purple" (Esther Rabbah 10:12) — this is the honor and greatness. And what it says, "just as the king has a crown" (ibid.) — this is the fear of him that Mordechai had. And they said in the Gemara in Menachot (65a): "Petachyah was in charge of the bird-offerings [kinnim]; Petachyah — this is Mordechai. Why was he called Petachyah? Because he would open [poteach] matters and expound them, and he knew seventy languages." The Sanhedrin also had to know seventy languages, for Rabbi Yochanan said: they seat on the Sanhedrin only men of wisdom, men of [good] appearance, men of [stately] stature, men of old age, men knowledgeable in sorcery, and who know seventy languages, so that the Sanhedrin should not need to hear through an interpreter. Rather, [Mordechai] would blend the language and expound it. Meaning: he would expound a single word by way of several languages, and this is what it means, "he would blend the language and expound them" — that is, he would mix and combine languages together, and expound them. And this is [the meaning of] what is written (Nehemiah 7:7), "Nehemiah, etc., Mordechai, Bilshan." This too comes to say that Mordechai was over all the nations, who number seventy languages, and therefore he knew seventy languages. And even though everyone on the Sanhedrin also knew seventy languages, it says there that Mordechai would blend the language and expound it — for just as he encompassed all seventy nations, since his fear had fallen upon all the nations, so too he encompassed all seventy languages together and blended them, as stated there. Therefore he is called (Nehemiah 7:7) "Mordechai Bilshan." And all this — when Mordechai was victorious over Haman, because of this he rose above the seventy languages, for (Numbers 24:20), "Amalek is the first of the nations," and when he rose above their first, he rose above the seventy languages, and his fear fell upon them. And further it says in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 6:2): "'There was a Jewish man [ish yehudi] in Shushan the capital'" (above 2:5) — "man" [ish] teaches that Mordechai was equal in his generation to Moses in his generation, as it is written (Numbers 12:3), "and the man Moses was very humble." Just as Moses stood in the breach, as it is written (Psalms 106:23), "and He said He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen one stood in the breach, etc.," so too Mordechai, as it is written (below 10:3), "seeking the good for his people." Thus far [the Midrash]. This means to say that because Moses was unique in that he was (Deuteronomy 33:1) "a man of God," something not found in any other. And also Mordechai — when he overpowered Haman and destroyed him from the world, Mordechai attained the supreme rank of being unique, such that it belonged to no other, as was explained above. Therefore he was similar to Moses; for King Ahasuerus had elevated him [Haman] over everyone, as it is written (above 3:1), "and set his throne above all the officials," and it was over this that Mordechai prevailed by virtue of the supreme, holy rank that had been given to him. Therefore Mordechai was similar to Moses, who had a unique divine rank over everyone. And just as Scripture called Moses "man" [ish] (Numbers 12:3), because he was a singular man with no equal, so too Mordechai was unique in his rank. And just as Moses stood in the breach, meaning that he completed Israel, so too Mordechai was the completion of Israel. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 10:13), Rabbi Berechyah said: The Holy One, blessed be He, wrote the redemption of Israel in the Torah, as it is written (Leviticus 25:47), "And if a stranger and sojourner among you grows rich, etc." — "the hand of a stranger and sojourner" — this is Haman, who became great and wealthy, until his hand reached [the point of being able] to weigh out ten thousand talents of silver (above 3:9). And he is called "a stranger and sojourner" because he was of the seed of Amalek, and was a sojourner in Media and Persia. "And your brother becomes poor beside him" (Leviticus 25:47) — this is Israel, who were poor and lacking in mitzvot. "And is sold to the stranger, the sojourner" (ibid.) — for Ahasuerus sold them to Haman, to destroy, kill, and exterminate. "Or to an offshoot of a stranger's family" (ibid.) — for he [Haman] made himself into an idol, as it is written (above 3:2), "bowing and prostrating themselves to Haman." "After he is sold he shall have redemption" (Leviticus 25:48) — for the Holy One, blessed be He, redeemed them from his hand and saved them from his decree and ransomed them. "One of his brothers shall redeem him" (ibid.) — this is Mordechai, of whom it is written (below 10:3), "accepted by the multitude of his brethren." "Or his uncle, or his uncle's son, shall redeem him" (Leviticus 25:49) — this is Esther, who was his uncle's daughter (above 2:7), and Israel was redeemed through her. Thus far [the Midrash]. He comes to explain how great this redemption is, to the extent that it is alluded to in the Torah — something not found regarding the other redemptions. This is because Israel was already under King Ahasuerus, and that alone would have been sufficient trouble; but not only that — even in their exile they were sold to Haman, and this is trouble within trouble. Therefore they could only be redeemed by virtue of the supreme rank that was attained through Mordechai and Esther, and it was by virtue of this that they were redeemed. And this is also why the Gemara (Chullin 139b) asks: Where is Mordechai [alluded to] from the Torah? Where is Esther [alluded to] from the Torah? — as was explained above. And this redemption is similar to what is written in the Torah (Leviticus 25:47), "And if the hand of a stranger and sojourner reaches, etc." For when one is sold to a gentile, it is only because of sin; were it not so, Israel would not be sold to a gentile. And even though Israel is in exile among the nations, and is under [their] kingship, they are not considered sold — except in the days of Haman, who was a commoner and not a king; [only] this is considered as their having been sold. And the Torah says (Leviticus 25:49) that his relative shall redeem him — for since he is related to him, it is fitting that he be free like him, and not be enslaved. Therefore his relative must redeem him, for how could this one be a slave to a gentile, when he is related to his brother who is Israel, who is free? Therefore it falls upon his relative to redeem him. And just as it is with a particular individual, so it was with the community of Israel as a whole — all of Israel was sold to Haman, and the brother of Israel is Mordechai, and it was fitting that he should be the one to bring Israel out from under Haman, who made himself into an idol (Megillah 10b). For Mordechai is from the tribe of Benjamin (above 2:5), which is particularly suited to serving Hashem, blessed be He, and not idolatry, since the Temple and the altar are in the portion of Benjamin (Yoma 12a). Therefore Benjamin is particularly suited to belong to Hashem, blessed be He. And all of Israel are his brothers; it is fitting that they should share the same matter. And just as you find with the redemption of a particular individual, that the one sold to a gentile is redeemed by his brother, so too Mordechai, who is of the tribe of Benjamin, and who is fit for Hashem, blessed be He, and would not be sold through him — it was fitting that the redemption be for Israel as well. Therefore he redeemed his brothers, and gave his life for the sanctity of His unique Name, in that he refused to bow down to Haman (above 3:2). The general principle: this redemption followed from the redemption that is in the Torah, and he brought them out from the dominion of Haman, so that they would belong to Hashem, blessed be He.