Esther · Chapter 9

"hoped" (asher sibberu) — like "the eyes of all wait for You" (einei khol eilekha yesabeiru) (Psalms 145:15). "but it was turned to the contrary" (ve-nehefakh hu) — an adjectival form from the Nif'al conjugation.

'Now in the twelfth month...' etc. — Behold, the verse states that the thirteenth day was the day that [the enemies] hoped [to prevail], etc., 'and it was turned about,' etc. This appears to be superfluous language, for who does not know all this? It would have been fitting simply to say: 'Now in the twelfth month, etc., on the thirteenth day thereof, the Jews gathered themselves together in their cities,' etc. Likewise, its saying 'the king's word and his decree' is a redundancy, for his decree is also the king's word. Furthermore, it says 've-nahafokh hu' (and it was turned about) — it would have been fitting to say 'va-yit'hafekh' (and it turned), 'that they should rule,' etc., and not 've-nahafokh hu,' which is a singular, standalone form. Furthermore, after it says 'the Jews gathered,' etc., before it says 'and all the princes of the provinces,' etc., it should properly have stated the verse 'and the Jews smote,' etc. Furthermore, it says 'they [themselves], against those who hated them,' for the word 'they' [hemah] is superfluous. However, we wrote above that in the first letters an explicit writ was written to the princes of the provinces and to the governors, to destroy, to slay, and to annihilate, etc. But that which was given as a decree by means of a herald crying aloud was only meant to make them ready for this day, without their knowing for what purpose their decree was — for the ambiguous proclamation would be understood by means of the explicit writ that was in the hands of the officers, since their letters were held in their hands secretly, to be opened on the appointed day, for they were to be ready to carry out everything found written in their documents. And in reversing the decree — so that it should not appear as a retraction of his decree, since a decree cannot be revoked — he wrote to the officers that the earlier decree still stood and the permission to destroy, etc., remained granted; except that the king was now strengthening the hand of the Jews to assemble and to stand for their lives, so that they should not bow their shoulders before those who came to destroy and kill them, but rather stand against them to save their lives from those who came to kill them by the sword's stroke and by slaughter — for to the officers it was impossible to write in any other manner. However, the copy of the writ that was given as a decree, proclaimed openly by a herald crying aloud, went further than this, for they found room, i.e., grounds, to be even more expansive then. This is because, since what was given as a decree at first, openly, was only a general statement that they should be made ready, without it being known for what purpose the appointed day was set, they, the enemies, interpreted it according to their own will — that not only would they, the Jews, kill those who came to kill them, but also that the Jews would be made ready on this day to avenge themselves upon their enemies, which includes even those who had not risen up to kill them, as we noted precisely from the vav in the word 've-lihyot' (and to be). Also, above, in the letters of the officers, it says 'to destroy,' etc., 'all the host,' etc., 'that besieged them,' whereas here it says 'their enemies' — because in the letters of the officers permission was granted only to stand against those who actually besieged them, but in the copy of the writ given publicly, it was to take vengeance upon known enemies, that is, their enemies, even without their having risen up against them to besiege them. With this we come to the matter itself: the Jews were in great confusion, saying, 'Behold, before us stand the king's word in the letters of the officers, and his decree that came to be given publicly — and these contradict one another. For in the one, the letters, permission was granted only to stand for their lives against those who came to kill them, whereas the decree proclaimed publicly also granted permission to kill those who had not risen up against them.' And they were being scorched by two fires. They said: 'If we say we shall act as the decree was given — to begin killing our enemies without their having risen up first — behold, we fear lest the officers arise to display their documents, which state that permission was granted only to stand for their lives against those who came to kill them, and the officers will turn into our adversaries.' There was also a second fire: fear of the multitude of all the nations who had heard that the decree was given at first only that they should be made ready for this day. For indeed the plain sense of the matter was that the proclamation addressed the nations in general, saying that they should be made ready to do whatever would be revealed on the appointed day from the letters of the officers; and they, the nations, thought that the nations in general would rule over the one nation — for none is set apart from the general nations except Israel — and this even if it reached their ears that the decree given in Shushan was to destroy them. Therefore, seeing now that it was not merely that the Jews should stand for their lives, but that they should also rise up of themselves to kill their enemies, would they not say that this second proclamation contradicts the first? And there is no answer to this, for how could the interpretation of the first be that it appeared all the nations would be made ready, while this one means that the Jews alone would be made ready? And if Israel would do nothing but stand for their lives, the nations would keep silent; but for Israel to rise up of themselves, they, the nations, would not have the strength to bear it. Both of these two matters are indeed expressed in the verse: as to the first — the fear of the contradiction between the decree and the letters of the officers — it says, 'when the king's word and his decree drew near,' as stated, meaning that the king's word was the opposite of his decree, and therefore they feared lest the officers rise up, as stated. And as to the second, it says, 'on the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have rule over them,' which alludes to the first proclamation, which appeared as though the command addressed to the nations in general concerned a specific nation. And the decree now given is his aforementioned decree; 've-nahafokh hu' (and it was turned about) refers to the king's word in the letters, and to what the enemies of the Jews thought on the basis of the one, i.e., the first, proclamation — that this decree meant not only that the Jews would rule over those who came to kill them, but also that they themselves would rule over those who hated them, meaning that they would take the initiative against those who hated them. This is the meaning of 've-nahafokh hu,' for one is the reverse of the other, and the enemies would be able to rouse themselves against the Jews if they held to this second proclamation. Therefore, on account of these two considerations, Israel did not dare to take it upon themselves to rise up and avenge themselves upon their enemies, but only 'the Jews gathered themselves together in their cities,' etc. — yet not to avenge themselves upon their enemies who had not risen up against them, but only 'to lay hand on those who sought their harm,' meaning those now rising up to do them evil. This is the meaning of 'those who sought their harm': namely, an action limited to standing for their lives alone, in accordance with the words of the sealed document that was in the hands of the officers. Now they saw that no man stood against them to besiege them, so that they killed no one — for their enemies had not risen up against them in a way that required them to stand for their lives. It thus turned out that the impression of their greatness was not felt on that day. Therefore they said in their hearts: 'It would indeed be good to seize upon the wording that the decree was given for Israel to rise up of themselves against their enemies, without their having risen up first.' And so they took counsel to act accordingly. Now, two obstacles stood against this: one, from the officers, lest they rise up against them, since this was not so in their documents; and the second, from the multitude of the people, who had hoped to rule over them, and who would now find not only that the Jews stood for their lives but that they also rose up of themselves against them. Nevertheless, they saw that neither of these was truly an obstacle — for as to fear of the nations, there was no fear, since indeed they saw that fear of them, the Jews, had fallen upon all the nations; and as to an uprising by the officers, there was likewise no fear, for indeed, 'and all the princes of the provinces,' etc., were assisting the Jews on that day when they gathered, so that no man stood against them, because their hearts had grown faint on account of this. Therefore they then saw fit to seize upon the copy of the decree's writ, and 'the Jews smote all their enemies,' without their, the enemies', seeking their harm or rising up against the Jews. And in this manner the verse gives the reason why the officers were assisting the Jews, even though the documents in their hands did not entirely favor them — and not only did they not protest against Israel's action, but they even helped them avenge themselves upon their enemies. This was because the fear of Mordechai had fallen upon them. And should you ask, would it occur to their minds to imagine that Mordechai himself would go to every single province to dominate over them? To this the verse answers, 'for Mordechai was great in the king's house,' giving two reasons. The first: that he is not comparable to them, for each one of the princes of the provinces is not great everywhere — each man is great only in his own place of dominion, but should he go to the king's house, he would not be great in that house and would not be reckoned important there; whereas Mordechai was great even in the king's house itself. The second reason: that they therefore feared him intrinsically, for indeed, they said, 'Hashem is with him' — for indeed his fame had spread through all the provinces, that the one, Haman, whose throne had been set even in the king's house above all the officers who were with him — Mordechai's hand had prevailed over him, until he hanged him upon the gallows, and inherited his house; and the king even reversed the writ that had been written, etc., for his, Mordechai's, sake. Therefore, upon hearing this, they reasoned a fortiori within themselves, saying: 'The one, Haman, whose throne was set above all the officers, and to whom Mordechai himself, together with all the Jews, was sold — he himself did not stand before him, that is, before Mordechai, on account of his having stretched out his hand against the Jews. How then shall we stand, if we lay hand upon the Jews in deed? For upon us too shall pass the cup of Haman the Agagite.' Therefore they reversed themselves and were assisting the Jews.

Questions: The word "they" (hemah) is superfluous. "And in the twelfth [month]" — until now the text recounted how Israel was saved from calamity until the arrival of the appointed time — that had it not been for the later letters, they would have been given over to plunder, and through the later letters, fear of them fell upon all the peoples. For until the arrival of the appointed day, there was no decree in force opposing them: the published edict written by Haman made no mention of anything to the contrary, while the published edict of Mordechai stated explicitly that the hand of the Jews was raised in triumph. And now it recounts how matters stood for them when the appointed time arrived, when the two sealed documents were opened. And so it says, "when the king's commandment and his decree drew near to be put into effect" — for then the decree, too, which was written in the sealed documents, was revealed. And this is a second point: that it was the time for it "to be done," for it was not possible on that day to remain passive, for the two sides to come to terms and not kill one another, neither this one the other nor that one this one — for the king's decree necessarily had to be carried out, to fight and to do battle. But by then the fortune (mazal) of that day had already sprouted forth for the salvation of Israel, and there was seen in it the wondrous providence attached to His holy people. For according to the astrological order, the star of Israel was then at the utmost lowliness, while opposite it, the star of Amalek was at the utmost heights, and this is why Haman chose that particular day. And so it says, "on the day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to rule over them" — for the day itself was the cause which gave them hope to seize dominion over Israel. And now Hashem showed what the hand of providence does: for not only did the adversaries fail to prevail over them, the matter was overturned from one extreme to the other, so that the adversaries descended from the height of their greatness to the depths of the pit, while Israel rose up from the lowest depths to the summit of success. And this is the first, all-encompassing miracle, of which it says "but it was turned to the contrary," that the matter was overturned from one extreme to the other. And the second miracle is that this did not happen by natural means — for it can indeed happen that one whose fortune is at the utmost lowliness will still prevail if he is helped, joined by a man whose fortune is successful, and the success of his partner tips his bad fortune over to good by virtue of his being joined with him. But here this was not so; rather, the Jews themselves ruled by their own power, without any help or assistance at all.

"Now in the twelfth month, etc." (9:1) — We already explained above, from the words of the Sages, why the lot fell in the last month: this month has an aspect whereby it would be, God forbid, an end and termination for Israel. This is like the fact that this month is the last of the months, so likewise, God forbid, it would be an end for them. But there is also here another aspect, that they have eternal existence — for from the side of their end they belong to Hashem, and from the side of Hashem they have eternal existence by virtue of that end. Now when a single thing, such as this — being the last of the months — has two distinct aspects, as is the case with the month of Adar: it has an aspect that there is, God forbid, an end for Israel, and this is from their own side; but from the side of Hashem, on the contrary, from the side of the end they have [continued] existence, as was explained above. Therefore, when Haman operated from the first aspect that applies to Israel — from the side of the end — the matter was overturned, for from the side of the end they have existence; so the end itself overturns the matter. Therefore, whatever Haman's design against Israel was, from the side of "the end," it was itself overturned upon him. Therefore it says, "the day when the enemies of the Jews had hoped to rule over them was turned to the contrary" — understand this, and you will understand the secret of the matter of this Megillah. You should know that Israel is called "reishit" (the first/first fruits), as it is written (Jeremiah 2:3), "Israel is holy to Hashem, the first fruits of His increase." And Amalek, too, is called "reishit," as it says (Numbers 24:20), "Amalek was the first of the nations." Now Haman said that Israel's "reishit" was greater than what is called "the first of the nations" [Amalek's designation] — for Israel is called "the first fruits of the increase," and produce is eaten year after year. Therefore he said that Israel, who are called "the first fruits of His increase," would be consumed by their enemies — that their enemies would eat them. Therefore he said that Israel went out of Egypt in the first month (Numbers 33:3), which is the month of Nisan (Rashi, Exodus 12:2), and this was the beginning of Israel when they went out of Egypt. This is because they are called "the first fruits of His increase," and the first fruits of the produce is in the month of Nisan, which is called "the month of the spring (aviv)." But Amalek is called "the first of the nations," for this notion does not apply to them — they are not for eating — therefore they are called "reishit" [only in that sense]. And when the lot fell, Haman rejoiced (Megillah 13b), and said that just as their beginning was in Nisan, so their end would be in Adar, which is the last of the months. And also the produce's end is in Adar, for in Nisan there is new produce. And the completion and finish of its consumption is in Adar, since in Nisan there is a different produce. And all this was Haman's error, for Israel is called "reishit" because they are the first thing in [God's] design — like one who sows grain, whose primary intent is for the grain, not for the straw. Therefore they said in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Numbers 766) that the thought of Israel preceded the entire world, as it says (Genesis 1:1), "Bereishit [In the beginning] God created," and "reishit" refers to none other than Israel, as it says (Jeremiah 2:3), "Israel is holy to Hashem, the first fruits of His increase." That is to say, the man who sows — his intent is for the grain, not for the straw, for after the straw has produced the grain, one throws away the straw and puts the grain into the storehouse. So too Hashem, who created the world, created it for the sake of Israel, and for their sake the world exists. And since it exists for their sake, they too exist for all the days of the world. But Amalek is the straw, as it is written (Obadiah 1:18), "and the house of Esau for stubble"; and because it is [merely] "first," it is destined to be lost, as it is written (Numbers 24:20), "but his end shall be even unto destruction." This is because the straw grows first, before the grain, but with regard to being lost it is likewise first — for after the grain has been produced, one throws the straw away to be lost. Therefore Amalek was destined to be lost at the end, for in Adar no straw is to be found, since from that point on the grain has been placed in the storehouse. Understand this well, for these matters are deep.

"the Jews gathered themselves together" (niqhalu ha-yehudim) — as a sign that they had [multiple] cities in Shushan.

Questions: What requires examination you will find in these verses, as in verse 16 — why, regarding the peoples, does it say that fear of the Jews fell upon them, while regarding the officials, it says that fear of Mordechai fell upon them? "They gathered together" — here it speaks of how matters stood for them in the great fortified cities, where the officials and governors and the king's army were found, and they served as a shield for them and actively assisted them, so that their adversaries were afraid to approach them or to stand against them, for they were aided by the king's officials and army. And so it says that they gathered in their cities — that is, the great cities that were in the king's provinces — but no man could stand against them. Now, there was a difference between the peoples and the officials: for the peoples, who did not know of the sealed documents, had no knowledge at all whether there was permission from the king to fight the Jews and kill them as well, and whether the earlier letters had also not been annulled — they feared the Jews themselves, since their hand had been raised through the king's decree. But …

And the executive staff. Those who were appointed to conduct the king’s affairs.

"And all the princes of the provinces" — who knew of the sealed letters and had no fear of the Jews at all, for they knew that the Jews too were exposed to being killed, and that they themselves could lay a hand on them by virtue of the first decree — they could have stood to help the persecutors of the Jews and upheld the first letters, or at least stood aside and not helped either party. But they did not do so; rather, they lifted up the Jews, helping them against their persecutors, and suppressed the first letters. And this was not out of fear of the Jews, but only because the fear of Mordecai had fallen upon them, for they feared that Mordecai would take revenge on them.

"went, growing greater and greater" (holekh vgadol) — a verbal-noun form from the Qal conjugation, and behold, it functions here like an adjective.

The questions: What is [the meaning of] "for the man Mordecai grew greater and greater"? "For [he] was great" — There are officials appointed over the administration of the king's house, and there are those appointed over the administration of the kingdom, and there are those appointed to fight the king's enemies from without and to conquer provinces. These officials, if they succeed, continually grow greater and greater, so long as they increase in conquering provinces and gaining power. He states that Mordecai encompassed all three of these offices: (1) that he was great in the king's house itself and chief of the king's household; (2) that his fame went forth throughout all the provinces, for he was viceroy to the king, governing the provinces; (3) that "the man Mordecai grew greater and greater," through his subduing many provinces under the kingship of Ahasuerus, as stated (chapter 10, verse 1).

"And the Jews smote, etc." — Behold, one is called an "enemy" (oyev) who harbors enmity in his heart, even if he does not carry out the deed of enmity; but one is called a "hater" (sonei) who also displays the hatred and carries out the harm, like the Amalekites and their like. It states that with respect to the "enemies," who had enmity only in their hearts and were not "haters" who came to actually cause harm, they struck some of them with the stroke of the sword alone, and some of them they killed completely, and some of them also with destruction (avdan), which means that his entire offspring perished — each man according to his wickedness. But with respect to the "haters," those who sought their harm, in order to fulfill the first letters [i.e., the original decree] to destroy them — to these they did according to their [the haters'] will. That is to say, just as it was their will to do to the Jews — which was "to destroy, etc." — so the Jews did to them. And this is the meaning of "and they did to those who hated them according to their will" — there was not one among them of whom it could be said that for his harm the stroke of the sword or killing alone, as with the "enemies," sufficed; rather, it was until utter destruction itself, until their complete end.

The questions: What is the difference between 'their enemies' and 'those who hated them'? See further below, verse 16. "And [the Jews] smote" — Now certainly the Jews were not given permission to kill whomever they wished, for it was written in the letters only that they might avenge themselves on their persecutors. And since by now no man stood before them in the large walled cities, they killed only the enemies whose enmity toward the Jews was well known, who were known to go to great lengths to harm them — but not "those who hated them" (for the difference between an "enemy" [oyev] and one who "hates" [sone] is that the enemy's enmity is openly known, while the hater's hatred is not openly known) — rather, "they did to those who hated them as they pleased," meaning they were able to disgrace them and humble them.

"And the Jews smote" (verse 5) — an explanation of what is written, "the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction." The meaning is that they struck them with the sword with a blow from which one might die, or which in the end certainly resulted in death; this is called "the stroke of the sword," except that death was not immediate. "And slaughter" — is actual killing; in any case, it is possible to say that the body remained and came to burial. "And destruction" — means that it was totally lost, and did not come to burial, for nothing at all remained of the body. Afterward it adds, "and did what they would to them" — meaning any death that they wished, even an ignominious death, they also inflicted upon them; this is [the meaning of] "and did what they would to those who hated them" — that the Jews so thoroughly ruled over those who hated them that they did to them as they pleased, and thereby the Jews ruled completely over those who hated them. Therefore it says afterward (verse 6), "and in Shushan the capital they killed and destroyed five hundred men," and it does not mention "the stroke of the sword" — for the stroke of the sword does not mean immediate death, and here [Scripture] comes to record how many were killed and destroyed; therefore it does not mention "the stroke of the sword," since "the stroke of the sword" does not imply certain, immediate death, but merely a blow.

"and destroyed" (va-abed) — a verbal-noun form, like "behold, I did not know anything" (hineh lo yadati davar). There were sages in Spain who took delight in [finding] a meaning for "Aridatha" and likewise "Poratha" — but they are the ones who delight in nothing, for these names are Persian, not Hebrew.

"And in Shushan the castle, etc." — It is fitting to pay attention to why, with regard to the plunder, they did not lay their hand [on it]. Also, as to what is said, "the number of those slain was brought before the king" — what purpose was there in bringing their number before him, and why specifically that of Shushan the castle, without his commanding that the number be brought also from the rest of the king's provinces? Further, in the statement "and in the rest of the king's provinces, what have they done" — is there not, as it seems, an a fortiori argument (kal va-chomer) here that itself has a refutation? For it would seem more likely that it is specifically in Shushan that [the people of] Israel would dare in their hearts to act with such boldness, since the house of Esther their sister was there, and Mordechai the great Jew was in the king's house. Further, in the statement "and what is your request, etc." — is this not to be regarded as strange? What did the king see to make light in his eyes what had been done in Shushan, that it should occur to him [to ask this], seeing that the queen's wrath had evidently not yet been assuaged by the killing and destruction of five hundred men and Parshandata, etc., such that he had to say to her, "and what is your request, etc., and it shall be done"? Further, instead of [being struck by] how difficult it was for her to ask that it be granted also for tomorrow to act according to today's decree — did she give no thought to the fact that the king might grow angry at her request, since she did not simply say "enough of the distress for the people of his kingdom," but her hand was outstretched even further? Further, why was Shushan the castle different from all the [other] provinces, that in all the provinces they were content with vengeance taken in one day, while in Shushan the castle it took two days? Further, it says "and a decree was given in Shushan" — what need was there to give a decree after she had already accomplished it by the king's word? Now, we have written several times that in the letters of wrath [the first decree] the destruction was written — "to destroy them" — while the officials [were informed only] in secret, telling them that on the appointed day, [the details] would be found written in the letters; but the decree was not given by means of a proclamation made openly to all the peoples, only in a vague, undisclosed way, that they were destined for this day, without it being known for what they were destined until the appointed day — for then the hidden matter would be learned from what was made explicit by the officials. But in Shushan, from the time the letters of wrath were sent, a decree was given to destroy them, for the reason stated above. And it went out from Hashem to afflict them in place of the enjoyment they had had there at the feast of Ahasuerus. Therefore, when the decree was reversed, in every other province they were able to proclaim openly to all the peoples that they might take vengeance on their enemies, and [the enemies] did not sense that the king was reversing and revoking his decree. But in Shushan, by having a proclamation issued that the Jews were destined for this day to take vengeance on their enemies, would not the reversal be sensed to some degree — especially as it was said to them that the first decree, given to destroy them, remains true, only that he was granting them permission to take vengeance on those who came to kill them under the first proclamation — so that both this and that fulfill the king's will? In such a way, faintheartedness could not fail to enter the hearts of the men of Israel to gird themselves with courage there; indeed, on the contrary, the gentiles would recall the earlier decree and gird themselves against them, and it would occur to them that the king still stood by his first decree. But this matter came about through Mordechai and Esther, for the decree was given by their word. The second point: in Shushan the king would maintain an inactive stance — sitting and doing nothing further — so as not to provoke them; yet it could not be avoided that those who acted according to his will would appear, in his eyes, as fulfillers of the first decree. Therefore the Jews took counsel not to lay a hand on the plunder, in order to demonstrate that these were persons executed by royal authority, put to death by the king's decree, and that therefore their property belonged to the king, according to the law of kings — for the property of those executed by royal authority belongs to the king. Therefore, in the plunder they did not lay their hand, so as to make known, and to have it become known, that the matter had come from the king and that these were his slain. The king also did yet another thing to indicate this — to strengthen the hearts of the Jews and to instill faintheartedness in the hearts of their enemies — namely, that the number of the slain was brought before the king, to show that they had carried out his command; and he accepted the number of the slain to make known that this is what he wanted. And because of this — that there was more faintheartedness in the heart of Israel in Shushan than in the other provinces — the king therefore did well to speak by way of an a fortiori argument (kal va-chomer), saying, "In Shushan the castle they have slain, etc., and the ten sons of Haman they have hanged" — that is to say: if in the place where the decree to destroy them had been given openly at first, [the people of] Israel dared in their hearts to kill to this degree, then in the rest of the king's provinces, where the first decree remained hidden — merely that they were destined for this day, undisclosed, which is now, in the second [decree], explained to mean that they might take vengeance on their enemies — what would they not do? There is no doubt they would extend their hand exceedingly. And why [does he raise this]? Because there was still room for the enemies of the Jews in Shushan to object and say: "Is it not so that the king's decree, given in Shushan at first to destroy the Jews, stands forever, according to the law of Media and Persia which is not to be revoked? And behold, if the multitude of the people rise up against the king and say, 'Know, O king, that it is the law of Media and Persia that whatever the king establishes may not be altered, and behold, we have done your decree — the first one, which you wrote and sealed' — what will the king do to them? Will it not befall him as it happened with Darius his father, that this too will happen to him" — for it was for this reason that they cast Daniel into the lions' den against the will of the king? Therefore the king said to her, "and what is your request further, and it shall be done" — meaning: behold, the terror [of the Jews] has begun to fall upon them [the enemies], upon seeing the hanging of Haman and the report of the number of the slain brought before me; but it is still possible that their heart has not been fully subdued, and they may hold fast to the decree given in Shushan to destroy them — and who knows whether they will rise early in the morning to carry out the decree given there to destroy them, especially the blood-avengers of the blood spilled that day, whose hearts will burn, each man for his brother or his relative. Therefore, [I ask you,] "what is your request" — let it be done further to them, to subdue them still more, so that it will not enter their hearts to rise up. Then she opened her mouth with wisdom and said, "let it be granted also tomorrow to act according to today's decree, and the ten [sons of Haman], etc." — for surely they will see and be terrified and recognize that the evil decreed against them by the king has been fully carried out, and also, through killing day after day, their heart will die within them, and no spirit will rise again in any man to rise up against so much as the hem of a Jewish man's garment. And the king understood her reasoning and told her to do so, and he acted with even greater wisdom in two matters, to reinforce the matter from that very day. First: he commanded that the decree be given from that very day, namely that it be done also tomorrow according to today's decree — for by this they would see that today's decree came essentially from the king himself, and not from Mordechai and Esther. Second: that from that very day the ten sons of Haman would be hanged, so that through this the terror of Israel [in the enemies' hearts] would fall from that very day, so that it would not enter anyone's mind to stir up [trouble] over the matter. And this is [the meaning of] "and a decree was given in Shushan," and also "the ten sons of Haman they hanged" — and afterward, "and they gathered, etc., on the fourteenth day, etc." — which indicates explicitly that the giving of the decree and the hanging of Haman's sons did not take place on the fourteenth but on the thirteenth — which was more than what Esther had said, for she did not say to hang them until the next day, nor did she mention anything at all about giving the decree. And he did even more, adding to his kindness, in order to instill faintheartedness in their hearts so that they would not stir up [trouble] from that day forward, beyond the fact that [the Jews] would act on the fourteenth day according to that day's decree. Furthermore, the king intended, in these two matters that he commanded to be done from the thirteenth day, [to forestall the possibility] that faintheartedness could not be avoided in the heart of Israel to some degree, with them saying, "If we have found honey in the king's mouth to kill for one day, let that suffice for us, and let us not go further to do so also on the next day" — for who knows, even though the king had said to do so, whether perhaps his heart was not wholly in the matter, and if they were to lay their hand [on their enemies] a second time, his heart might turn sour, and he might grow angry, and his heart might turn against the Jews. Therefore He, may He be blessed, put it into the king's heart that, immediately, from that very day — the thirteenth day — he commanded that a decree be given in Shushan, and also that the sons of the murderer be hanged, in order to strengthen the heart of the children of Israel and to instill faintheartedness in the heart of their enemies. For now they would say, it was not for nothing that he hanged them immediately, if not to demonstrate that his heart was strong and firm in the matter, and that from that very day he was carrying out the expression of his will to act again tomorrow. And through this they were strengthened, and "they assembled." And this is [the meaning of] "also on the fourteenth day" — meaning that, since vengeance after vengeance, day after day, might have seemed burdensome and wearisome, such that they might have grown weak-handed because of it — nevertheless, through the fact that they [Haman's sons] were hanged immediately, "they assembled" even on the fourteenth day as well, which was an addition to the vengeance of the thirteenth day, for they took courage in their hearts, seeing the extent of the help they had from the king. And this is [the meaning of] "also."

The ten sons of Haman. I saw in Seder Olam: These are the ten who wrote a [false] accusation against Yehudah and Yerusholayim, as it is written in the Book of Ezra: “And during the reign of Achashveirosh, at the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the dwellers of Yehudah and Yerusholayim.” And what was the [purpose of the] accusation? To stop those who were coming up from the exile during the days of Koresh, who had started to build the Beis Hamikdosh, and the Cutheans slandered them and stopped them. But when Koresh died, and Achashveirosh reigned, and Haman was promoted, he [Haman] saw to it that those in Yerusholayim would not engage in the construction, so they [Haman’s ten sons] sent in the name of Achashveirosh to the princes of the other side of the river to stop them [from building]. — Notes: (1) Ezra 4:6. (2) Seder Olam Rabbah 29. But they did not lay their hands on the spoils. So that the king should not cast an envious eye on their money. — Notes: (3) Alternatively, Esther’s ancestor, King Shaul had sinned by sparing Agag and by allowing the people to take some of Amoleik’s booty (I Shmuel 15:17-29). His misdeed was now rectified by killing Agag’s descendants, Haman and his sons, and by “not lay[ing] their hands on the spoils,” although they were permitted to do so. This is alluded to in the acrostic [שאול] formed by the first letters of the phrase ובבזה לא שלחו את. (Me’am Lo’ez)

"but they did not lay their hand on the spoil" (u-va-bizah lo shalchu) — a noun from the geminate-root verbs, on the pattern of "rabbah." Also: it would have been good counsel for the spoil to go to the king's treasuries, in order to please him.

"the ten sons of Haman, etc." (verse 10) — As for the fact that it mentions "the ten sons of Haman" at the end, it should have said "and [they slew] the ten sons of Haman, Parshandatha, etc." This is because, had it done so, "the ten sons" would have been joined to what is written before this (verse 6), "and in Shushan the capital they slew and destroyed five hundred men" — "and the ten sons of Haman" — and it would come only to state the number, like "five hundred men" of Shushan. But here the verse does not come for this, but rather comes to say that they are one collective unit together, and all of them departed their souls at one time, as will be explained; therefore "the ten sons of Haman" is written at the end. And for this reason it had to be written this way, for it should have said "they slew five hundred men and [the ten] sons of Haman, etc." — but rather it comes to say that all ten of them together were hanged, and their souls departed as one. And so they said in the Gemara (Megillah 16b): "and Parshandatha and Dalphon" [through] "the ten sons of Haman" — Rabbi Chiyya of Yafo said: "the ten sons of Haman" and "the ten" must be recited in a single breath. What is the reason? Because all their souls departed together. Rabbi Yonah said in the name of Rabbi Zeira: the vav of "Vayzata" (verse 9) must be stretched with a zakif [cantillation mark]. What is the reason? Because they were all hanged upon a single gallows together. And the explanation of this is that this verse comes to say that the seed of Amalek — these being the ten sons of Haman — were opposed to Hashem in respect of His being One (Deuteronomy 6:4), as has been explained many times in this Megillah. And it is because His blessed Name is One that destruction came upon the seed of Amalek, for as long as the seed of Amalek is in the world, His oneness is not seen in the world (Rashi, Exodus 17:16). And because their negation was directed against Hashem who is One, therefore their souls departed as one, and they were hanged upon a single gallows — all of this on account of the fact that the seed of Amalek was opposed to the Unified Name, which indicates that He, blessed be He, is One. Now there are two things in man: the body and the soul. Therefore the soul departed for all ten as one, as is fitting, and their bodies too were hanged as one. And all these things serve only to make known that He, blessed be He, is One and there is none else, and it is from Him that the downfall came upon the seed of Amalek, who oppose His oneness. For if not so, why did their souls depart as one? Rather, it is because the blow came to them from Hashem, who is One alone, therefore the blow too was at a single time, not divided, but one. And also because he [Haman] made himself into idolatry (Megillah 10b), and thereby offended against His being One, therefore his sons were hanged as one, and their souls departed as one. And because Haman departed from the collective body of the world that believes in His oneness, and made himself into a collective unto himself, therefore ten of his sons — ten being a single collective — were hanged, and their souls departed as one. And in the Gemara (Megillah 16b): Rabbi Chanina bar Papa said, Rabbi Shila the man of Kfar Tamarta expounded: All the songs [in Scripture] are written half-brick over brick, and brick over half-brick, except for this song and the song of the kings of Canaan, which are half-brick over half-brick, and brick over brick. What is the reason? Rabbi Abahu said: so that there be no rising up again for the downfall of the wicked. The explanation of this is that all the other songs [came] because Hashem brought relief to Israel from their distress, and brought them out from the hand of the nations, and this matter is a relief when He brought them out of their distress; therefore the song is [written] half-brick over brick and brick over half-brick. For when it is in this pattern it has breadth, and such breadth is fitting for all the songs, inasmuch as Hashem broadened [their situation] for them and redeemed them from the hand of the enemy. And in any case, even though Hashem redeemed Israel from Egypt, nevertheless He did not destroy all of Egypt, but only brought Israel out from their midst, and gave Israel relief from their exile. Therefore this song and the other songs came only concerning the relief of Israel, and therefore this song, and the other songs that are concerning the relief of Israel, are half-brick over brick, which indicates a relief that has permanence, and such is the relief of Israel. But here [in Esther] the song was not concerning the relief of Israel, but rather that He cast down their enemies until they reached utter annihilation and complete destruction, and it is concerning this that this song of the ten sons of Haman comes, and the main point is not concerning the relief of Israel. For even though they were delivered from Haman, they were not completely redeemed; rather, what came from Hashem was the annihilation and destruction that befell the enemies of Israel, which is a complete destruction. Therefore in this matter too the song is half-brick over half-brick, which has no permanence, but only a complete downfall. And likewise concerning the kings of Canaan, about whom Hashem commanded, "you shall not let any soul live" (Deuteronomy 20:16) — concerning this the song comes because they had a complete downfall; therefore the song is half-brick over half-brick and brick over brick. And specifically these two songs came concerning the downfall of the wicked, and not concerning the relief that came to Israel. For with Canaan they already had their relief, in that they had come out of Egypt and were no longer under their [the Canaanites'] hand. And likewise regarding Haman, even with Haman's downfall they did not attain complete relief, since they remained in exile under the kingdom of Media and Persia. And you should further understand well that all the songs are half-brick over brick and brick over half-brick (Megillah 16b), and this is as we have said, because Israel grew strong and their power expanded greatly. Therefore this song is half-brick over brick, because this indicates expansion, inasmuch as they are laid out in a manner that can always be broadened further. Thus, when Israel receives perfection, this is not the final goal beyond which there can be nothing more; rather, they are prepared to have yet more perfection. But this song is half-brick over half-brick, because this song is on account of His having cast down their enemies until they had no rising up at all — and this is a complete downfall, [namely] the downfall that came upon the wicked. And in the Yerushalmi (Megillah 3:7) it is stated that one must write the sons of Haman — "Parshandatha, etc." — like [the pattern called] shanitz ve-nachitz, like this kontarya. This too may be explained as we have said: that this song must be written one [word] directly above the other, so that each one is exactly level above the next. And this is what is meant by "like this kontarya" — which is the cord that hangs down from the plumb of the building, upon which cord a weight is hung that stretches the cord evenly, so that nothing juts outward. For if one thing juts outward, then it would not be exactly one directly upon the other, but would be somewhat like half-brick over brick. Therefore it must be stretched taut until they are perfectly even, like one who intends to make the building perfectly straight. "But on the spoil they did not lay their hand." Even though it was written in the king's name (above, 8:11), "and their spoil for plunder," nevertheless they did not take their spoil, so that the king should not say that their intent was not to save themselves from their enemies, but only to seize their spoil. Therefore [it says] "on the spoil they did not lay their hand," to make known that they were clean of this. And further, you should know that they conducted themselves as was fitting for this miracle. For the miracle was not so that Israel should acquire wealth, but only to cast down their enemies. And this is the distinction between this redemption and the other redemptions, for the other redemptions brought them gain. For when they went out of Egypt, that redemption was to elevate Israel and make them free men, and they gained through the redemption. But this miracle was only to remove the enemy, and not to gain more than what they had before. For even after this miracle was done for them, they were still under Ahasuerus, and so Israel did not acquire in the days of Ahasuerus more than what they had at first. Even though the fear of the Jews fell upon them (above 8:17, and here verses 2-3), this was [only] to remove the enemy so that he would not rule over them, as will be explained shortly. And had they taken their property, it would be as though the miracle was to gain for them in this redemption — and certainly there is no gain here, since they were still in exile.

"On that day" — since they had permission to kill only their enemies, whose enmity was openly directed to harm them, as stated above, it necessarily follows that from the great number of those killed it became known how many were their persecutors who rose up against them. Therefore they immediately brought the number of those slain before the king, to show how many were the persecutors who rose up against them — to the point that even after the king's decree, there were still found five hundred men who had raised their heads against Israel and were killed.

"On that day, etc." (verse 11). He needed to write "on that day," because he comes to say that even though logic would not dictate that on that very day the number of the slain would come before the king — that the slain would be counted immediately on that same day of the killing, and [the tally] would come before the king — nevertheless, the number of the slain came before him on that very day. And certainly this was because it was a wonder to kill five hundred men in a single city. And nevertheless the king said (verse 12), "What is your petition, and what is your request further, and it shall be done." He did not say "up to half the kingdom, and it shall be done," because he comes to say that even in the matter of killing, more would yet be done — and this is certainly a greater thing, that after they had killed five hundred, he would give her even more. Therefore she asked the king that another day, the fourteenth, be granted to them. And one must ask: why was Esther not satisfied with what she had already had on the thirteenth day in Shushan? And it is not reasonable to say that the enemies were still numerous and wished to fight for their lives — for if so, then in the rest of the king's provinces, where it was not done on the fourteenth day, [it would follow that] the enemies, who are the enemies of Israel, had likewise not yet been removed there. Furthermore, the Megillah is read in walled cities on the fifteenth day (Megillah 2a) — and is it because they killed in Shushan for one extra day that this should be of any consequence to the other walled cities? The Ran, of blessed memory, expounded at length to give a reason for this matter, citing the Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 1:1), as is explained in his words. But it appears to me to say, according to the plain sense, that Esther knew that enemies and haters remained for the Jews in Shushan, whom they were not able to finish off in a single day. And the reason for this is that in Shushan there were many adversaries from the families of Haman, who dwelt there near him in Shushan. And know this: that in Shushan they killed five hundred on the fourteenth day (above, verse 6), whereas in all the king's provinces they killed seventy-five thousand (below, verse 16) — and certainly, by reasoning, it would have been fitting for there to be more in Shushan in proportion to this. Rather, it is because in Shushan there were the friends of Haman and the members of his family, and therefore there were many there. And when Esther saw that they were not finishing off all the adversaries of the Jews, she asked the king to give them one more day. And further on we shall explain that Scripture alludes to this matter in what it says (below, verse 16), "and the rest of the Jews who were in the king's provinces" — for why does it say "and the rest of the Jews"? Rather, to say that the rest of the provinces are secondary to Shushan, for the primary enemies were in Shushan, and therefore the number [killed] there was great. But in the rest of the provinces, in proportion to Shushan, they were few, and therefore Esther asked for one more day specifically in Shushan. And as to why all the walled cities also observe [Purim] on the fifteenth day, even though this [extra day] occurred only in Shushan — this is all in remembrance of the miracle. For if it were confined to Shushan alone, it is possible that Shushan might become destroyed and without inhabitant, just as we find that a number of walled cities have been destroyed. And if so, one element of the Megillah would be nullified, for it is written (below, verse 28) that "[their memory] shall not perish from their seed." Therefore it was necessary to make it so that every walled city that has been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua son of Nun would also be like Shushan, which is a walled city (Megillah 2b). So it appears to say, according to the plain sense. And there is a further way to explain, and this is the essential point: that Scripture comes to say that the miracle which Hashem performed for Israel in this Megillah was a miracle in complete perfection, and one should not say that there was a miracle here, but that it was not in complete perfection. Therefore it was fitting to establish a day of rest for the Jews, and the making of a feast and a holiday, [to coincide] with when the moon is full of its light and in its completeness, as it is written (above, 8:16), "The Jews had light, etc.," referring to the complete goodness that Hashem performed with them. And behold, Pesach and Sukkot, which are holidays for Israel and are times of rejoicing, fall on the fifteenth, except for Shavuot, because that is dependent on the counting of fifty days from the day after the Sabbath (Leviticus 23:16). But the times of rejoicing are on the fifteenth of the month, for then the moon is full of its light. And because it is more fitting that the days of rest be on the fifteenth day, therefore it was established for the walled cities, which are similar to Shushan — surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua son of Nun — that they would have both the fourteenth day and the fifteenth day, for this indicates a complete rest. And it was not sufficient for this to be in Shushan alone, for what is a single city reckoned against the whole world? Therefore it was established that all the walled cities that are similar to Shushan would be like Shushan. And it is possible to say that for this reason Esther asked the king to give her yet another day, the fourteenth, so that the rest would fall on the fifteenth day, which is fitting for this in and of itself. And you should further know that it is fitting also that the rest and holiday for the Jews be on the fifteenth day, for then the moon is full of light. Only, walled cities that have a wall and villages that do not have a wall are not equal [in this]; for the villages are similar to the moon as it is on the fourteenth day, since on the fourteenth day there is still no boundary to the moon, for it is still continuing to increase until the fifteenth. The villages, which have no fence and boundary, are similar to the moon as it is on the fourteenth day, which likewise has no fence and boundary yet; therefore the rest of the villages is on the fourteenth day. But the inhabitants of walled cities, who have a fence and a boundary — namely the wall, which is the fence and boundary of the city, for up to here is the city [and no further] — are therefore similar to the fifteenth day, for on the fifteenth day there is a fence and boundary to the light of the moon. Therefore, for the inhabitants of walled cities, their rest and rejoicing is on the fifteenth day, on which there is a boundary and fence to the light, for up to here it comes, and no further. And in any case it would be fitting for the rejoicing and holiday to be when the moon is full of light, and it would have been fitting for it to be on the fifteenth for everyone, since that is when it is full of light. Only, the fifteenth day, on which the light of the moon has a boundary and fence, is not comparable [for those who have no such boundary] — and this is comparable to the inhabitants of walled cities, who have a fence: up to here is the city [and no further]. Therefore Esther asked to be given, in Shushan, which is a walled city, the fourteenth day as well, so that their rest would be on the fifteenth day, as is fitting. And you should know that this is why the wicked Haman chose the thirteenth day of the month of Adar: because he said that Israel, who are enemies and adversaries, diminish the light of Haman — just as the thirteenth day of the month is when the light is not yet at its fullness and completeness, so too do Israel diminish the light of Haman, so that his light is not in completeness. Therefore the lot fell on the thirteenth, for on the thirteenth day they would kill those who diminish Haman's light, and then his light would immediately be in completeness on the fourteenth day, for the fourteenth day is full of light. And even though before the thirteenth day the light is even less, Amalek said that this is not comparable, for in any case they are not able to diminish his light entirely — they only diminish some of his light — and it is like the thirteenth day, when the moon is diminished from the fullness of its light, but nevertheless the light of the thirteenth is great. So too did Haman say: even though Israel diminish his light so that it is not in the completeness of its light, nevertheless, despite this, his light is great. But the matter is reversed: it is Haman who diminishes the light of Israel, so that their light is not at its fullness. And when they destroyed their enemies on the thirteenth day — those who were diminishing their light — then their light was in completeness, like the moon on the fourteenth day, when it is full of light. Even though [one might say] there is more light on the fifteenth, in fact by the fifteenth day the light has already begun to diminish, for the light does not remain full for the entire fifteenth day, but rather begins to diminish from the fifteenth day onward. Whereas the fourteenth day is full of light, with no diminishment of light at all. And nevertheless, for the inhabitants of walled cities, who have a wall, a fence, and a boundary, their day of rest is the fifteenth day, because on the fifteenth day there is a boundary to the light, and one must follow the boundary and fence that exists on the fifteenth day — and this applies to the inhabitants of walled cities. But villages, which are exposed and unwalled, having no fence or boundary for the town, must follow only the day itself, and the day that is full of light is the fourteenth, for the fifteenth day is not entirely full of light, since the light has already begun to diminish; therefore their day of rest was the fourteenth day, and all of this is in accordance with a correct order. And it is for this reason that Esther asked, in Shushan, which is a walled city (Megillah 2b), for one more day, namely the fourteenth, so that their rest would be as is fitting for them. And there is a further way to explain why Scripture made a distinction between the inhabitants of walled cities and the inhabitants of villages. For this matter concerns what happened to the Jews at that time, when they conquered the enemy — and particularly enemies such as these, who are the seed of Amalek, opposing and harassing them in whatever way they could — and Hashem helped them so that they conquered the enemy completely. And it is known that the settling of the land is called "conquest" [kevishah], for one conquers the land and settles in it, as it is written (Genesis 1:28), "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it [kivshuha]," which is said regarding [people] settling the land that they have conquered. And when there is a road that many travel upon, it is called a "beaten path" [derekh kevushah]. All of this is because when there is a complete settlement of human beings upon the land, this is called the conquest of the land, for Hashem gave the land to man (based on Psalms 115:16), and when they dwell upon it, this is called the conquest of the land. Therefore the inhabitants of walled cities, who dwell with strength, having a wall, this is called a more complete conquest. Therefore it is fitting for them to have a conquest of the enemy in which they conquer the enemy with a complete conquest, and they must conquer the enemy with a complete conquest — and hence [it was fitting] to give them one more day than the inhabitants of villages, whose conquest is not so complete, since they are inhabitants of villages and do not have a complete conquest, and one day suffices for them. And this is why the matter depends on a walled city that has been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua (Megillah 2b), who conquered the land of Israel (Deuteronomy 3:28). Therefore, a walled city that was [conquered as part] of Joshua's conquest, and was a walled city — this was a complete conquest — even if it is [now] not a walled city, because its walls have been destroyed, nevertheless it was already included in the conquest of the land, and the name "walled city" is applied to it (Megillah 3b). And the reverse is also true: when [a place] was not a walled city at the time Joshua son of Nun conquered the land — that is, it had no wall — this counts for nothing, for it was not included in the conquest of the land. And for this reason, the fifteenth day is fitting for the inhabitants of walled cities. Only, because it was not possible for it to become known that the king had granted the fifteenth day as well, except in Shushan, where the king was, therefore the fifteenth day was [initially observed] only in Shushan alone. Nevertheless, since it was [granted] in Shushan, which is a walled city, it is fitting that it be so in all [cities] that are surrounded by a wall. And this explanation, when you understand it, is very correct. And as for her request "and let them hang the ten sons of Haman on the gallows" — why did she need this after they had already been killed? But the matter is this: Esther asked that it be done to each one in accordance with what was fitting for him. And we have already explained above that hanging specifically, and not another form of death, was fitting for Haman. And likewise for his sons, hanging specifically was fitting, as was explained above at length. And according to its plain meaning, Esther asked that the matter be seen and made manifest, so that all the other nations would hear and see, and therefore she asked to hang them. And by this they would be utterly blotted out, insofar as this image/form [tzelem] undergoes erasure [mechuy]. And we have explained this matter in several places, concerning the erasure of this image, that this constitutes complete destruction, as was explained above. Only, because Esther said, "perhaps Ahasuerus does not wish it to be revealed so publicly to everyone," she therefore made this request of the king.

"In Shushan the castle the Jews have slain" — they are Mordecai's men; they are the Jews who were in Shushan, who slew their enemies in Shushan. Therefore Scripture says "to the Jews who were in Shushan" (Esther 9:13), and "it was given, also in Shushan" (Esther 9:14), and "the Jews who were in Shushan gathered together" (Esther 9:18) — but does not mention "the castle." And the meaning of "they gathered together" is that they had been scattered along the roads.

The questions: If the king was troubled that the number of those slain was so great, why did he say to Esther that she should ask for still more — "shall the sword devour forever"? And also, this decree of his, giving the Jews permission to kill the people of his own kingdom, is manifest folly, the like of which has never been heard. "And the king said" — From this Ahasuerus saw how numerous were the persecutors of the Jews, and how much he needed to increase his efforts to save them. This is what he said to Esther: if in Shushan the castle, which is the royal city, where the dread of the kingship is upon them, nevertheless the persecutors of the Jews were so numerous that they killed five hundred men — who knows what they did in the rest of the king's provinces, and whether they succeeded there too against these many persecutors? For there they certainly rose up against them even more, since the fear of the king is not upon them [there] as it is [in the capital]. And whatever you ask further for the deliverance of the Jews, to save them from the danger hovering over their heads, it shall be granted to you.

"And the king said to Esther the queen: in Shushan the castle they have slain and destroyed five hundred men" (verse 12). In the Gemara (Megillah 16b), Rabbi Elazar said: this teaches that the angel came and struck him on his mouth. The explanation is this: it was difficult to understand why it says "they have slain and destroyed" — it would have sufficed for it to say "they have slain" alone, for the expression "destroyed" implies a loss, that is, a destruction and a loss in the world, as though loss had been brought into the world. And it was not fitting for Ahasuerus to speak this way to Esther, as though he were upset that loss and destruction had been caused in the world, and as though Ahasuerus were regretful. Therefore they explained that certainly he was angry, and said, in effect, "how they have slain and destroyed!" And as for what is written afterward, "and whatever your petition, etc.," this is because the angel came and struck him on his mouth, so that he then said "and whatever your request further, etc." And by this is also resolved the difficulty that, logically, it makes no sense — since Esther had not requested anything further — why Ahasuerus would say "and whatever your request further," for it is not fitting for a king to invite a further request. Concerning this they said that certainly he was saying in anger, "they have slain and destroyed," but the angel struck him on his mouth until he said, "whatever your petition."

And let Haman’s ten sons be hung from a gallows. Those who were slain.

The questions: And how did Esther find the heart, after sensing the king's displeasure, to ask to make the next day too a day of great slaughter? Why does the entire Megillah call it "Shushan the castle," but here, in recounting what they killed on the fifteenth day, it calls it simply "Shushan"? "And Esther said" — On this basis Esther found grounds to make her request of the king, and her intent was that they should kill in Shushan the next day as well, for by this, dread and fear would fall upon the persecutors of the Jews, if they saw that the king's hand was still stretched out over them. However, in my opinion, her request concerned Shushan the city, not Shushan the castle — for Shushan was divided into two parts: the location of the castle, where the king and the officials dwelled, which was called "Shushan the castle"; and the city itself, which was called simply "Shushan." On the thirteenth day they killed in Shushan the castle, and Esther requested that permission be given to kill, on the fourteenth day, the enemies who remained in Shushan the city, and also to hang the ten sons of Haman, to instill dread and fear, so that they would not continue to act presumptuously against Israel.

The decree was proclaimed. A statute was decreed by the king.

"And the Jews who were in Shushan gathered themselves together" (verse 15). But above, on the thirteenth day (verses 5-6), when the Jews likewise killed [their enemies], it is not written "they gathered together." For had it written "they gathered together" there, it would have implied that had they not gathered together they would not have been able to complete the deed of killing them — and this is not so, for the fear of the Jews had already fallen upon them, such that even had they not gathered together they would have been able to kill them and destroy them, so great was the fear of the Jews [that had fallen upon their enemies] — and this was from Hashem, may He be blessed. Therefore it is not written "they gathered together" there. Nevertheless, because one does not rely on a miracle (Pesachim 64b), they did gather together. And since it had already been written that they were able to complete the deed even without gathering together, it afterward recorded the deed as it actually occurred, namely that they gathered together and did what was fitting for them to do. And one might ask: since it is written here (verse 16) the number of those whom they killed in all the rest of the provinces, why then is it written above (verse 5), "and the Jews struck at all their enemies" — why was this necessary to write? One can explain that the verse above was written so that you should not say that the Jews were only able to strike the number given later and no more, because the king did not want to lay waste his land. Therefore the verse above writes that they struck at them as they wished, meaning that the later number was not a limit and no more, but rather that they killed them as they wished. And there is a further explanation: it was necessary to write the verse above also because, certainly regarding Shushan, it was necessary to write the number above (verse 6), for that is what Ahasuerus's statement to Esther refers to (above, verse 12), "in Shushan they have slain five hundred men." And it did not record the killing in Shushan alone, nor did it record the killing in the rest of the provinces alone, so that you should not say that what was done in Shushan was a miracle unto itself, and the killing in the rest of the provinces was also a miracle unto itself — rather, it was all one single miracle. Therefore, above (verse 6), where it was necessary to write the number killed in Shushan, it wrote together with it also what was done in the rest of the provinces (above, verse 5). And here it was necessary to write the number killed in Shushan on the fourteenth day (above, verse 15), since this had not yet been recorded, how many they killed; therefore it here also wrote how many they killed in the rest of the provinces, since that too had not yet been recorded. And regarding the rest of the provinces it is written "and stood up for their lives," because in the rest of the places they were more afraid than in Shushan, for there [in Shushan] was the king, and it was known to them that the king had reversed the first decree. And also because there [in Shushan] were Queen Esther and Mordechai the Jew, whose fear had fallen upon everyone — so that the phrase "stood up for their lives" would not apply there, for that would imply that they were afraid the enemies would kill them, and this was not so, for they had no fear at all. But in the rest of the king's provinces they did have fear, and they needed to stand up for their lives, lest [their enemies] pay heed only to the first letters and say that the second letters had been written through Esther's stratagems. Therefore they did not need to stand up for their lives in Shushan the castle, where Mordechai and Esther were. And because the killing on the fourteenth day in Shushan was only an addition, and not for the sake of standing up for their lives — for "stood up for their lives" implies that the Jews were afraid that they would be killed, and needed to save their lives, and this was not so, since this [killing] was not a matter of saving their lives, but only of taking revenge on their enemies. Therefore it appears that for this reason it is written (verses 15, 18) "Yehudiyim" [Jews] with two yods in the text. For the one yod is the yod of the gentilic [denoting affiliation], as in "Ivri" (Hebrew), "Mitzri" (Egyptian), "Adomi" (Edomite). The second yod is the yod of the plural, so that two yods are required. And in the other places where only one yod is written, that single yod stands in place of two, as though it were lacking a yod. But here "Yehudiyim" is written in full, to indicate that those who are Jews, full and complete, did the killing — and therefore "Yehudiyim" is written with two yods. But whoever was not a full and complete Jew, since he did not need to save his life, did not gather together, and therefore it is written "Yehudiyim." And above, where it is written (verse 6) that they killed five hundred men on the thirteenth in Shushan, it is not written "the Jews gathered together," for the verse there came only to state the number of those killed, and it is this that Ahasuerus referred to (above, verse 12), "in Shushan they have slain five hundred men, and in the rest of the king's provinces what have they done" — and there it is not written "and they gathered together."

"and stood for their lives" (amod al nafsham), "and rest" (noach), "and slay" (harog) — these are verbal-noun [infinitive] forms.

"And the other Jews," etc. — After stating what needed to be done in Shushan — a double calamity — and concerning what was decreed in Shushan at first to destroy them, as stated [previously], it now says that in the rest of the king's provinces their hearts were emboldened even more then, because it was not spelled out openly in the copy of the document that a decree had been given to destroy [them]; it was only sealed, [indicating merely] that they were to be ready for this day. And when the matter was reversed, an explicit decree was given, like the explanation of the previous one, that the Jews were to be ready to avenge themselves on their enemies, as explained above quite clearly. But there was some question whether they would rise up of their own accord to kill their haters without waiting for them to seek their harm, or whether they would only gather to stand for their lives, to save themselves from those rising up against them — so that if no man attacked them, they too would not send forth their hand nor provoke them. This is because they saw that the letter written to the officials of the provinces, and the copy of the text of the decree given to be proclaimed openly, were not, taken together, identical: what was found written in the officials' letters authorized only gathering and standing for their lives, to be saved from the hand of those coming to kill them; but the copy of the text [issued] for the decree was that they were to be ready to avenge themselves on their enemies — meaning, even without the enemies rising up against the Jews [first]. Therefore they were afraid there, lest the enemies of the Jews take heart to rise up, saying, 'Many are those with you compared to the Jews, who are weak militarily,' since the hand of the officials and deputies would be complicit in that betrayal by the very wording of their own document — that the king had not protested the haters of Israel rising up against the Jews, but only permitted Israel to stand for their lives. Therefore they resolved not to begin sending forth [their] hand to avenge themselves on their enemies until they investigated the matter — whether dread of them had fallen upon their enemies or not. And they said in their hearts: 'Let us gather and stand together, and see whether their hearts are proud and they rise up against us for battle — [in which case] it is enough for us merely to stand for our lives; but if we see that their hearts are slain within them and they do not take heart to rise up against us, then it will be clear that Hashem is with us — this will not merely be apparent — and we shall rise up against them to kill and to destroy.' And so they did. This is the meaning of 'the Jews gathered themselves together' — for at first their intent was only to gather in unity and stand for their lives, that is, to save their lives from their enemies' hand alone, to be rescued from their hand. But when they saw, 'and had rest from their enemies' — needless to say that their enemies were not rising up against the Jews, but were even showing them goodwill, giving them ease from their enemies — then they said, 'Behold, the hand of Hashem has helped us; let us now rise up against our haters.' And then they resolved, and slew their haters. And Scripture changed its term from 'enemies' to 'haters' — is this not because the nations at large, their enemies, bear enmity only in their hearts, while those who are haters in particular are the Amalekites, whose nature is to bring the enmity into actual deed? At first they thought that the haters would set battle against them, and their intent was [only] to stand for their lives to save themselves; but when they saw that [the haters'] hearts did not take courage, and that the enemies were even more so [docile] than they, so that the Jews had ease from them — then they rose up and slew their haters. But regarding their enemies, they did not make killing the main point — rather, for some there was only a stroke of the sword, and for some, killing; but with the haters, killing was the essential and primary [act]. This is [the meaning of] what is said above, 'the Jews struck all their enemies with a stroke of the sword,' etc., but '[they] did to their haters as they wished' — meaning, as their haters had wished to do to the Jews, namely, to destroy, to kill, etc. And they did not lay their hand on the spoil, for the reason mentioned above.

The questions: This entire verse is superfluous, since he already mentioned in verses 2, 3, and 5 how the Jews killed and destroyed their persecutors. It also contradicts verse 2, which said that no man stood before them, whereas here it says that they gathered and stood for their lives, implying that they fought. Why does it say here "and had rest from their enemies and slew those who hated them," whereas above (verse 5) it said that they smote their enemies and did to those who hated them as they pleased? Now in verse 3 he spoke of the walled cities, where the seat of the officials was, and where the king's army stood and served as a shield for the Jews, and there no man stood before them, and they did not need to stand for their lives and fight. But here he recounts how matters stood in the unwalled towns — for in the small unwalled towns and in the villages there were neither the officials who supported the Jews nor the king's army, and there their enemies truly raised a hand to fight against them. Therefore he recounts that the rest of the Jews who were in the king's provinces — that is, those who did not dwell in the walled cities — gathered and stood for their lives, and fought with their swords and weapons of war, until they had rest from their enemies, and their hand prevailed over them. And therefore he recounts that they killed those who hated them, for they included in the killing all the seed of Amalek, once the battle had been kindled — unlike with the walled cities, where it recounts that they did to those who hated them as they pleased and did not kill them, since there had been no battle between them.

"and had rest from their enemies" (verse 16) — the meaning of "and had rest from their enemies" is that they no longer had to worry about them at all. At first it is written (here) "and stood for their lives," to save themselves from death, and afterward it says "and had rest from their enemies," meaning that they had rest from those who were afflicting them, and no longer had to worry that they would go on afflicting them. But that they should have rest and make it a festive day — this was not on the thirteenth day, only on the fourteenth day. And concerning this it is written (below, verse 18): "But the Jews who were in Shushan assembled together on the thirteenth thereof and on the fourteenth, and rested on the fifteenth." And regarding the other provinces it wrote "and had rest from their enemies," but not regarding Shushan, and this is as we explained above, that in the city of Shushan they did not have such fear there, and no adversaries remained to them at all, and therefore it was not necessary to write "and had rest from their enemies." But in the other provinces of the king, one must consider that adversaries remained toward the Jews; therefore it is written "and had rest from their enemies," meaning that they had complete rest. And lest you say that they did not actually kill [anyone], but only gathered to stand for their lives in order to kill them, while the enemies humbled themselves before them, and the Jews performed no act of killing against them — since this is not stated, for it is written only "they gathered and stood for their lives" — therefore it is written "and slew those who hated them," [to show] that they did kill them. And it is not written "slew those who hated them" and afterward "and had rest from their enemies," for if so I would have explained that "they had rest from their enemies" meant that they had a feast and rejoicing afterward, as it is written (verse 18) "and rested on the fifteenth, and made it a day of feasting and rejoicing." Therefore it states first "and had rest from their enemies and slew those who hated them," and from this it is proven that "and had rest from their enemies" does not mean that they rested and made it a festive day, but only that they were given rest from their adversaries.

"On the thirteenth day," etc. — Now, it would have been fitting for them to make a feast and rejoicing on the thirteenth, since it was the day that was turned for them from death to life, and they did to their haters as they wished. But let us consider what it says, 'and they rested on the fourteenth thereof,' etc. — why did it separate 'rested' from 'a feast and rejoicing,' rather than saying '[they] rested, and made a feast and rejoicing, on the fourteenth thereof'? Furthermore, what is the meaning of this 'rest'? If it refers to rest from labor, that is the opposite of the received tradition, for they did not accept that [obligation] upon themselves; and if it is of the same sense as the 'rest' mentioned above [in the previous verse], how can it say 'thirteenth' there and 'fourteenth' here — and why did it not combine them? Indeed, there is no doubt that on the thirteenth day they found no rest in their hearts; rather, their fear and dread grew great then, as on a bitter day, and they fought for their lives out of dread of heart — all the more so according to the statement of the She'iltot and Rabbeinu Tam, that the thirteenth day was the time of the fast-assembly for all, for it was a day of distress and rebuke for them. And not only that, but even once they had finished killing their haters on that day, the worry of their hearts did not depart, for they said: 'Who knows whether the hearts of the blood-avengers will grow hot, each man for his son and his brother, and in the early morning they will don zeal to gather against the Jews to destroy them, to render the vengeance of their brothers' blood that was spilled by them?' If so, out of this worry, on the fourteenth day too the Jews stood at their watch to see what would happen, and they saw that dread of them had fallen upon their haters. Then, seeing that Hashem had given them rest from all their enemies round about, their hearts rejoiced over their rest, and they made that day a day of feasting and gladness. This is [the meaning of] 'and they rested on the fourteenth thereof' — for at the start of the day they then saw rest, and made that day a day of feasting and gladness, for until then they had not believed in [their continued] life. And what happened to the rest of the king's provinces on the thirteenth — which was a day of battle and war — happened to the people of Shushan on the thirteenth and the fourteenth, for the reason discussed above. And this is [the meaning of]: 'the Jews who were in Shushan gathered themselves together on the thirteenth and on the fourteenth thereof,' and they began to test, at the start of the fifteenth day, like the people of the rest of the provinces on the fourteenth thereof, and saw rest on the fifteenth thereof. Therefore they made the fifteenth day a day of feasting and gladness — something they did not have the heart to do on the preceding day, for great dread was in their hearts.

"and rested on the fifteenth thereof" (verse 18) — According to reasoning, this should have been written above, next to (verse 15) "And the Jews assembled, etc.," and there it should have written "and rested on the fifteenth thereof and made it a feast (-and a holiday-)." But because this verse was written only for the sake of the dwellers of the unwalled towns (perazim), as it is written afterward (verse 19), "Therefore the Jews of the unwalled towns, etc." And this is its explanation: those in Shushan assembled on the thirteenth day and on the fourteenth day, and rested on the fifteenth. And the rest of the Jews, as is written before this (verse 17), assembled only on the thirteenth, and rested on the fourteenth. "And therefore" it is specifically the dwellers of the unwalled towns who make the fourteenth a holiday; but the dwellers of the walled cities — since [the Jews of] Shushan rested specifically on the fifteenth and not the fourteenth — therefore the dwellers of the walled cities do as Shushan did, resting on the fifteenth. And the verse that said "Therefore the Jews who dwell in the unwalled towns" could not have been written after (verses 16-17) "And the rest of the Jews who were in the king's provinces, etc.," for if so, it would imply that even the dwellers of the walled cities killed on the thirteenth and rested on the fourteenth* — and if so, why specifically the Jews who dwell in the unwalled towns? Therefore it is written (here, in verse 18) that in Shushan they killed on the fourteenth and rested on the fifteenth, and therefore specifically the unwalled towns make a holiday on the fourteenth, but the dwellers of the walled cities do as Shushan did. And as for why it did not write, "Therefore* the dwellers of the walled cities make on the fifteenth day a feast and gladness" — this is because not all the walled cities made a holiday on the fifteenth day, for it is required that [the city] be surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua son of Nun (Megillah 2b). "and made it a day of feasting and gladness" (verse 18) — and in the verse after it, it is written (verse 19), "gladness and feasting," and in the verse after that (verse 22), "days of feasting and gladness." And the explanation of this is that the feast (mishteh) is greater than the gladness (simchah), and therefore it is fitting to say "days of feasting and gladness" — because the day is called by the name of what is in it, feasting and gladness, but it is not called by the name of the gladness, since it is not as great as the feast; therefore the day is called by the name of the feast. And therefore it is written (verses 17, 18), "and made it a day of feasting and gladness" — it attaches "feasting" to "day." And likewise (verse 22), "days of feasting and gladness," the days are called by the name of the feast, and are not called by the name of the gladness.* But (verse 19), "make the fourteenth day gladness and feasting," means to say that they make on it gladness and feasting. And the meaning is not that the day itself is [one of] feasting and gladness — rather it says that "they make on it gladness and feasting," because the feast contains within it both the drinking and also the gladness, and therefore the gladness is placed first: for the gladness comes first, since it requires no preparation at all, and one can have gladness immediately; but the feast requires preparation as well, to arrange the meal, and it also contains the gladness — therefore the gladness is [mentioned] first. And therefore it is written, "make the fourteenth day gladness and feasting," to say that they make gladness and feasting. For one may only interpret it as "a day of feasting" when "feasting" is joined completely to "day," as in "and made it a day of feasting and gladness" — this may be interpreted as "a day of feasting." And it further appears that because it speaks* afterward (in verse 19) of "and a holiday," it therefore says "days of gladness and feasting and a holiday," for each one is greater [than the one before]. For when a person is glad, he is in a state of completeness — the opposite of when he has sorrow, which is a deficiency. And when he has a feast, he is even more in completeness, for at a feast his heart is completely glad. And when he has a holiday, he is even more in completeness. And therefore it adds to say (verse 19), "and sending portions, one man to another," because when a person is in complete completeness, he also bestows upon others from his good, as was explained above regarding (above, 2:18), "and gave gifts according to the bounty of the king." And when he himself is lacking and not in completeness, he does not bestow upon others. And therefore all these things that it mentions come to say that a person should be in completeness, and should add yet more completeness upon his completeness, until he bestows upon another. But elsewhere it is certainly fitting to place feasting before gladness, because gladness comes about through the feast. Only in a place where it comes to say that he was adding completeness upon completeness does it place gladness before feasting, because the feast contains within it both the gladness and the drinking, and therefore it mentions these things one after another in order.

Unwalled. Who do not reside in walled cities, [celebrate] on the fourteenth, and those who reside in walled cities [celebrate] on the fifteenth, like Shushan; and [these cities] must have been surrounded [by walls] since the days Yehoshua Bin Nun. So did our Rabbis expound and learn. — Notes: (4) Maseches Megillah 2b. Shushan which was without a wall in the time of Yehoshua was accorded special status “because the miracle was performed there.” Sending. This מִשְׁלֹחַ is a noun like מִשְׁמָר [guarding] and מִשְׁמָע [hearing], therefore the shin is vowelized softly [without a dagesh]. — Notes: (5) Nechemyah 12:24. (6) Yeshayah 11:3.

"the villagers" (ha-perazim) — like "the peasantry ceased in Israel" (chadelu perazon) (Judges 5:7). "and of sending" (u-mishloach) — an adjectival form from the augmented heavy conjugation, on account of the added mem; and we find [a parallel in] "behold, I will send among you" (hineni mashliach bakh) (Exodus 8:21). "portions" (manot) — [meaning] shares, like "one double portion" (manah achat apayim) (1 Samuel 1:5).

"Therefore" — It is fitting to pay attention to what these four kinds of rejoicing are — gladness, and feasting, etc. — which are specified by name; for it is no small matter that they are joined together on account of that miracle and that deliverance. And furthermore, what was it that Mordechai the Jew changed in his approach? For instead of just a Yom Tov, he set gifts to the poor, in that he said to make them days of feasting and gladness, and of sending portions, a man to his fellow, and gifts to the poor. Indeed, I say that concerning the redemption, and concerning the exchange in which Hashem exchanged evil for good for them, they did these things for themselves. Is it not that, behold, regarding the matter of the evil deed that was decreed against the Jews to destroy them, our Sages, of blessed memory, set their minds to expound and inquire why the Holy One, blessed be He, did this to His people Israel? The opinion of Rashbi [Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai] was that it was because they bowed down to the image of Nebuchadnezzar; but the opinion of all the Sages of Midrash Chazit (Song of Songs Rabbah) is that it was because they enjoyed the feast of Achashverosh. And they said that there they were found [culpable], and there were two evils: first, the enjoyment of the feast; second, the harm of the sight of their eyes, which strayed after the vain harlotries that were set up before them. Now, we wrote above that it cannot be avoided that both this and that were causes, as we established by necessity above. And not only that — but even if we said that their evil was but one, either the sin of the image or the sin of the feast, there is no doubt that in searching their ways to return and repair what they had corrupted, so as to turn back His wrath, blessed be He — for 'He has torn and will heal them; He has struck and will bind them up' (cf. Hosea 6:1) — they were concerned to bring healing and repair for both of these evils through their repentance. Therefore, in their returning to Hashem, they set their hearts upon their wrongdoings, to humble themselves for them before their God. And therefore they said: if the matter was on account of the sin of the image, and we became liable for death like every idol-worshipper — whose law is a single one, namely death — then let us regard ourselves as though already among the dead of the world, for anyone who stands to be killed by Haman's decree is like one already slain, whose blood has been shed. And so let us now humble ourselves like the dead, in whom no breath of soul remains; and as a remembrance of this, let us conduct mourning over ourselves — and this is [the meaning of] 'and in every province, etc. — there was great mourning among the Jews' (Esther 4:3) — as ones mourning over themselves. If it was on account of the sin of the feast, on account of the matter of the sin of eating and drinking, then let us fast in response to it — and this is [the meaning of] 'and fasting.' And if it was on account of haughty eyes gazing at the harlotries in which their eyes had delighted, let them weep — and this is [the meaning of] 'and weeping.' And behold, this too corresponds precisely: like the sin of the image and the sin of the feast, the point of similarity between them is that the sin was committed in assembly and in gathering — each one of Israel sinned in public, before the eyes of all his fellow brethren who were present; so that, beyond the stumbling-block under each man's own hand, every man was also made to stumble through his brother's sin, since each one saw his brother sinning and did not protest — whether concerning one who had sinned or even one who had not sinned but was present there together with them. Therefore the remedy for their corruption was this: eulogy [hesped], which is a gathering of people to eulogize, as though each man of them were eulogizing every other man besides himself — for this is the way of eulogy, since the way of eulogy is never for a man to eulogize himself, but only someone other than himself. This is [the meaning of] what was said. And also for the reason that anyone who prays for his fellow, when he himself is in need of that same thing, is answered first — unlike the other matters mentioned, for mourning need not be done in assembly, and likewise fasting and weeping, since a man may mourn, or fast, or weep, each one alone, by and for himself; but eulogy has no existence except in a gathering of many people, and for another. And therefore Esther commanded, saying, 'Go, gather together all the Jews' (Esther 4:16) — which is to repair, through a gathering, the very manner of the event that had occurred in evil through a gathering. And this matter, too, they directed toward eulogy, as has been said — that in the gathering, each one would be, as it were, grieving over the distress of his fellow, which is a preparation for being answered as one who is himself afflicted — for anyone who prays for his fellow, when he himself is in need of that same thing, is answered first. And through all these things, in their repentance to Hashem, they demonstrated submission through the four things stated — mourning, and fasting, and weeping, and eulogy — as the verse states, 'and in every province, etc.' (Esther 4:3). And therefore, when Hashem saw their affliction and delivered them from their distress, they made, corresponding to these, four kinds of rejoicing, to give thanks to the name of Hashem, who turned good for them in place of evil in all four of them. This is that they made a Yom Tov in place of mourning, a feast in place of fasting, gladness in place of weeping, and sending of portions in place of eulogy. And this is because, just as they had eulogized, each man for his fellow, on account of each man having been made to stumble through his brother's sin, and each man being distressed over his brother's distress — and not, behold, each one turning aside to be distressed only over himself — therefore [there is] 'sending of portions, a man to his fellow,' to show gratitude, each man to every other, for having been distressed for him over his distress. And there were two portions, for each one had been distressed both over his fellow's body and over his fellow's soul, which had been on the verge of being lost, put to death through the sin, by Haman's plot. And therefore, in place of their four distresses — mourning, fasting, weeping, and eulogy — they exchanged, corresponding to them, gladness, feasting, Yom Tov, and sending of portions, a man to his fellow. Now, the conclusion of the Gemara is that they did not accept upon themselves that Yom Tov meant to cease from labor. And this is to be understood in light of what will come [below]: that what is [described as], 'the Jews of the villages, etc., were making it a day of gladness, etc., and a Yom Tov,' was only that they had begun to do so of their own accord, but not by way of a binding acceptance — until Mordechai wrote to them, as will be explained below with the help of Heaven, that they should accept it upon themselves. And so, when he [Mordechai] saw that they had not accepted upon themselves the Yom Tov that consists of resting from labor, because of the loss of income it would entail, what did he cleverly do? He did something so that, without formal acceptance, they would nonetheless cease from labor. And this is that the distress of ceasing from labor applies only to the poor and destitute who seek bread and have none. Therefore he decreed that, instead of [formally observing] Yom Tov, they should accept to give gifts to the poor — so that, through this, the destitute would not worry about where their bread would come from on account of the cessation of labor, since their bread would be given to them by the wealthy, to eat and drink just as they do. And moreover, such is their rule: that from the Purim collections of one year to the next, they should have enough to eat their fill. And therefore Mordechai wrote to them to make them days of feasting, etc., and gifts to the poor — so that through this, each man in his own place would rejoice with gladness and cease from labor, whether poor or rich.

The Questions: In this verse it appears that only the perazim (Jews of the unwalled towns) took upon themselves to make a feast and rejoicing, and not the mukafim (those of the walled cities) — why? And why did they at first accept upon themselves only the fourteenth day, and [when] Mordecai sent word that they should observe the fourteenth and fifteenth, they [themselves] accepted upon themselves to make it a Yom Tov, yet Mordecai did not decree that they make it a Yom Tov? "Therefore the Jews of the villages" — this makes clear that in the first year only the perazim took upon themselves to make a feast and rejoicing, and not the mukafim. The reason for this is that the sealed letters sent by Haman to destroy the Jews had not been publicized, because the officials concealed them, as [explained] above, and it was not known to anyone at all that permission had also been given to the enemies of the Jews to kill Jews. And the Jews assumed one of two things: either that the first report that had been heard, that a decree had been given to destroy the Jews, was entirely false, and that it had never gone out from the king at all but only from Haman; or that it was true, but that the king had reversed the first decree and annulled it entirely and issued a different decree. In any case, [they believed] there had been no special miracle on the fourteenth day of Adar, since by the king's own order they would rule over their enemies, and also they were not in danger from the nations themselves breaking out against them. He states that in the walled cities the king's troops stood by to help them, and therefore they did not make those into days of feasting; only the Jews of the perazim, who had been in danger because their enemies broke out to fight against them and the king's troops were not there, and they were in danger — therefore only the perazim accepted these as days of feasting and rejoicing. And therefore they took it upon themselves to make them a Yom Tov as well, for in truth the community of Israel as a whole is forbidden to accept upon itself new Yamim Tovim and to prohibit work upon them, for they would thereby transgress bal tosif (the prohibition against adding [to the commandments]); but since only the perazim accepted it, they are judged as individuals, who are permitted to accept a Yom Tov upon themselves.

Mordechai wrote. This scroll [of Esther], as it is [i.e., in its present state]. — Notes: (7) To ensure the continued annual celebration of the Purim festival.

"And Mordecai wrote" (va-yikhtov Mordekhai) — he alone [wrote this], to establish it for the coming year; and so, too, in every subsequent year, the joy of the days of Purim. And the meaning of "in the days in which the Jews had rest" (Esther 9:22) is [stated this way] because the reckoning of our years is calculated, at the end of the cycle, by the solar year, whereas our months follow the moon. Thus the interpretation of "the days" is that these days should be close, relatively, to the original days on which the events of Purim occurred — and this is achievable for us through the addition of a second Adar. Therefore Scripture had to say "and the month that was turned for them" (Esther 9:22) [in general terms], for it will always fall in the month adjacent to Nisan, whether in a common year or a leap year. And [some] commentators said that the meaning of "and the month" refers to the second Adar; and others said that it means "like the days" — namely, the fourteenth and fifteenth day — but if so, it would have been proper to say "and in the month" rather than "and the month."

"And he wrote" — In order to enter into the matter of these verses, let us pay attention to the difficulties that are fitting to raise concerning them. First: it says "And Mordecai wrote these things" — what are "these things"? If they are [what follows], "to confirm upon them," etc. — the term "these" is fitting only when the things are already set down before him, not concerning something he is yet to say. And had he begun by relating the words of the letter, I would have kept silent, saying that the word "these" refers back to what he begins to relate — as when it says afterward "and he sent letters," etc. — but here he has not yet explained what "these" are. Second: for the whole phrase is superfluous, and it should simply have begun, "And he sent letters" — and we would understand that he had written them. Third: for it appears that Mordecai wrote only this, so how then can it say afterward, "And Queen Esther... and Mordecai... wrote... to confirm this second letter of Purim"? Which is "the second"? And if it means that Esther wrote "with all force" to confirm the second letter — which is what it says afterward, "words of peace and truth, to confirm these days of Purim," etc. — and calls it "second" relative to the first letter that Mordecai wrote, this cannot be right at all, for the implication would only be that by means of these letters that she sent, they uphold the letter that preceded — not that her own words constitute the letter itself. Moreover, if so, what does "second" mean? Who does not know that, relative to the first, it is necessarily second? And further, why does it say that they uphold "the second" and not "the first," since the two are one and the same matter? And likewise, the whole implication of these letters that Esther wrote is only to uphold what the Jews had already confirmed and accepted upon themselves, above, and upon their offspring, by virtue of the first writing. Fourth: it says "and the Jews accepted" [ve-qibel, singular] — why does it not say "ve-qiblu" [plural], as it states afterward, "they confirmed and accepted" [kiymu ve-qiblu, plural]? For although elsewhere the masoretic tradition of reading is singular while the text as read is plural, here both the reading and the tradition are singular. Fifth: it says "for Haman son of Hammedatha," etc., "had plotted," etc. — who does not already know all this? Sixth: why is this place different, that here he calls him "the Agagite," "the persecutor of the Jews"? Seventh: what does the word "all" come to include, in saying "the persecutor of all the Jews"? Eighth: he should have made his main point only about the deed and not about the intention — so what is the point of saying "he had plotted against the Jews," etc.? Ninth: why does it begin with "to destroy them" and conclude with "to confound them and to destroy them"? Tenth: for there was something greater than these — "to annihilate, to slay, and to destroy," etc. Eleventh: it says, "and when she came before the king, he said, with the letter, [his plan] shall be reversed," etc. — for this appears to lack all sense: in which letter did he say "his plan shall be reversed"? And why does it say that he said his "plan" would be reversed, rather than stating the main point — that he said to hang him on the gallows? Twelfth: it says "his plan shall be reversed" and not "his word shall be reversed" — for he had both spoken it and also had it put in writing. Thirteenth: it says "therefore they called these days Purim" — who stated this inference? If it is the anonymous voice of the Megillah, it is not connected to what precedes; and it would have been fitting to state first what follows from the letter, namely "therefore, concerning all the words of this letter," etc., and only afterward say "therefore they called," etc. Fourteenth: it says "this letter" — who does not know that it is this one and not another? Fifteenth: it says "and what did they see for such a thing, and what befell them" — for these are superfluous words, devoid of sense, like something bland without salt. Sixteenth: why did they call the days "Purim" [plural] after the name of "the Pur" [lot], which is singular? And if it is because the days are two, behold, the festival of Passover is seven days, and yet it is not called "Pesachim" [plural]. Seventeenth: it should have indicated the multiplicity in the days, not in the "Pur." Eighteenth: after it says "and the Jews accepted," why does it repeat and say "they confirmed and accepted," etc.? Nineteenth: it says "for their offspring and for all who joined them" — which had not been mentioned until now in Mordecai's words. Twentieth: it says "and these days are remembered and observed" — for in saying "observed," "remembered" was already included. Twenty-first: for the whole verse, "and these days," etc., is already included in what was said above, "they confirmed and accepted," etc. Twenty-second: it says "and Queen Esther wrote," etc. — for after they had already confirmed and accepted, what purpose is served by this writing now? Twenty-third: it should have said "and Esther and Mordecai wrote," rather than "and Esther wrote," and only afterward, as an afterthought, add "and Mordecai the Jew." Twenty-fourth: what is meant by "with all force" [et kol tokef]? What "force" did they write concerning what preceded? And also, since the intent was to express something good, it would have been better to use a term of confirmation and strengthening rather than the term "tokef" [force]. Twenty-fifth: what do the words "et" and "kol" [all] come to include? Now, in order to arrive at the explanation, let us first recall what we stated above — that the letters of wrath and fury were of two kinds. One was sent secretly, addressed "to the officials of every people and people, and to the king's satraps and governors," instructing them "to destroy," etc. But that which was given as a decree, revealed openly to all the peoples, was only to inform them that they should hold themselves ready for this day, and the masses were not told for what they should be ready. And in general, even the Jews did not know explicitly the decree that stood arrayed against them, except through worry, out of concern lest something be whispered against them — for the officials proclaimed it only in the places where Jews dwelt, in such a way that it was not stated explicitly but derived only by implication. And therefore, even though in every single province the king's word and his decree reached the people — nevertheless, as for the great danger to the Jews, they did not fathom the depth of it. And therefore, on account of five things, the extent of the miracle was made light in their eyes. One: because they did not know what was written in the letters of the prefects, the governors, and the officials of the provinces — that it was "to destroy," etc. — but only heard that the decree had been given openly, that they should be ready for this day. And so perhaps they thought that only some lesser evil would come upon them, not reaching the gates of death, but only the plundering of their possessions and the looting of their goods, and the like. Two: because they did not know the greatness of Haman before the king, which they might have thought would prevent his decree from being reversed on his account. Three: because they did not know whether Israel was evil in the king's eyes, so that in selling them he was like one who sells his field because it is bad — but perhaps they were in fact good in his eyes, and he did what he did only to satisfy Haman's wish, and not from his own heart, and therefore he reversed it. Four: for it might occur to them that the matter did not proceed from Hashem, but only from the evil of Haman, who plotted against the Jews — "he built, and Hashem tore down" — for Israel were not guilty at that time before Him, may He be blessed. Five: for they might say — particularly the people of the distant places, who had not heard the queen's word, that she had put her life in her own hand to come to the king contrary to the law — the matter would seem light in their eyes, since they would say: King Ahasuerus did not at first know that his own consort was a Jewess; therefore, once he knew, he demolished in his fury Haman's wicked fortresses, reversed his letters, and hanged him — in such a way that the miracle and the deliverance would seem light to them. Let us now come to the matter itself. It is this: in that year, in the days when the Jews had rest — which was in every city other than Shushan — because of what they saw, that they had rested from their enemies on the fourteenth day, they made that day a day of feasting and joy; and those in Shushan, whose rest from their enemies came on the fifteenth day, made that day likewise a day of feasting and joy. But in the years that followed, the people of Shushan did nothing on their own initiative; whereas the Jews of the unwalled towns, being that they dwelt in unwalled cities, their miracle loomed greater in their eyes, and they kept the fourteenth day as a day of feasting and joy, etc., on their own initiative, year after year, by way of a voluntary practice and not by an accepted obligation, neither upon themselves nor upon their offspring — but the people of Shushan did not continue the matter beyond that year itself. And this is why, concerning that year, it says, "in the king's provinces," concerning the fourteenth day, "and made it a day of feasting and joy," and likewise the people of Shushan on the fifteenth thereof. But afterward, it does not say that they made joy and feasting except for the rest of the provinces — and not all of them, but only those that were unwalled — and this is the meaning of "therefore the Jews of the unwalled towns, etc., make," etc. — but not the walled cities. And the reason was: aside from their not having a wall around them, their own deliverance from the enemy's hand did not loom as great in their eyes either, on account of these five factors that undermined the sense of the intended slaughter and erased it from their minds — for it had not occurred to them that they had been like sheep for the slaughter, like cattle for the killing, as in fact they had been. Therefore, those within the walls held back their hands, while the unwalled towns acted only as a matter of voluntary devotion. But Mordecai knew the greatness of the miracle; therefore he resolved in his heart that not only should the people of Shushan and those like them accept this matter as an obligation for the fifteenth, and those dwelling in the unwalled towns for the fourteenth, upon themselves — but that it should also be an obligation upon their offspring and upon all who joined them, namely the converts. He said, however, in his heart: if I tell them now, at the outset, to accept upon themselves and upon their offspring the obligation to observe the days of Purim, their hearts will turn sour against accepting, and they will reject my words on account of the five factors that we have described. So what did he do? He devised a scheme to enter into the matter gradually, line by line, so as to bring them into the yoke of acceptance while removing from them the arguments that would weaken their resolve. And this is that he said, first: I will ask of them only that this generation, who witnessed all the good that came to them, accept it upon themselves — and it will not be burdensome for them. And in order that they should accept as an obligation what they had already begun as a voluntary practice, what did he do? Before speaking to them, in sending letters for them to accept the obligation upon themselves, he wrote in the scroll all of the above concerning the matter of Haman — whom the king had made great — and all that he had plotted against the Jews to destroy them, and that the king had sold to him the people of Hashem, and all the dread that Mordecai felt on their behalf, and that Esther had put her life in her own hand because of the matter, and that Hashem had saved them — this is the section from "a certain Jew" and onward. And this is the meaning of "And Mordecai wrote these things" — those things in which the whole matter of Haman is recorded, as it is written in the text of the Megillah, and the word "et" also comes to add the matter of Mordecai and Esther that corresponds to it, which is the section "a certain Jew," for from there derives the matter of the miracle — and this is why it was the view of the one who says that the obligation to read the Megillah begins from "a certain Jew" onward, for through this information all five factors that made the greatness of the miracle light in their eyes are nullified. This is because they will find written the report of the evil deed, that which was written in the letters of the prefects, governors, and officials of the provinces — an explicit writing, "to destroy," etc. — and they will remove from their hearts the first of the five things, which they had thought, namely that death had not come in through the windows of the decrees against them. And they will also find written the passage about the greatness of Haman, whom the king made great, and so on — for through this the second thing that arose in their minds, to make light the extent of the evil that had been upon them, is nullified. And also the third factor — that they did not know that the king too had become their enemy, that he now was fighting against them — now their eyes will see that Haman held a tenfold sway over the king, so that the king carried out this strange deed, to destroy the remnant of Israel, even more eagerly than Haman himself, for they will find it written in the scroll that, instead of Haman giving the ring to the king, the king gave his own ring to Haman — as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, taught, that the king desired evil for Israel even more than Haman, like the parable of the owner of the mound and the owner of the ditch. And also the fourth thing that arose in their minds — that even though Haman might have said what he said, "and it came to pass" was not commanded by Hashem, for the slain of Haman's sword were good in the eyes of Hashem, and nevertheless He was angry with him a great anger, and poured out upon him the fury of His wrath — now they will see and be ashamed, for surely Hashem brought about all of this; and had Mordecai not known all that was done in the heavens, and returned to Him who had struck him, and gone out into the midst of the city and cried out, etc. — and from him, others saw, and Israel likewise did complete repentance and fasted three days, all the people found in Shushan — Hashem would not have saved them, for the matter proceeded from Hashem, and He wounded and healed them. And included in the matter is also that the lot fell in Haman's favor, which shows that the heavens themselves fought against them — "were it not for Hashem who was with us." And also the fifth factor, that they might say their own misfortune was not so great, since after all, they had a kinswoman in the king's house, and as soon as he learned that she was a Jewess, he turned his face to hate Haman, and stood and repaid him measure for measure, and saved our households — to this, they will now find written in the scroll that, on the contrary, she too was caught in a wicked trap, as Mordecai said to her, "you and your father's house will perish," and she poured out her soul to death, and fasted, she and her maidens and all the people of the land, three days, night and day, in order to come to the king contrary to the law — for it was his one law to put to death whoever came uncalled — and had it not been for Hashem, she too would have had to drink of the cup of poison of Haman the Agagite; for all that the king did in granting her request and her petition, He, may He be blessed, was the one doing it, not King Ahasuerus, for her sake. And how much more so now, for on the contrary, there was a hiding of the Face precisely because she was a Jewess, and the rod of the wicked rested upon her, and she was given in marriage to Ahasuerus — as they will see written in the scroll, from "a certain Jew" onward, which is what the verse means in saying "And Mordecai wrote these things" — that is, that there was recorded there everything pertaining to all these matters, namely, from "a certain Jew" onward, as discussed. And after this was written — namely the text of the Megillah, from "a certain Jew" until here — in order to send and make known in all the provinces all that had befallen them, this is the meaning of its saying, "And Mordecai wrote all these things": he sent along with this letters to all the Jews, "to confirm upon them" — that is, upon themselves, until the end of the entire generation to whom the miracle had happened, but not yet upon their offspring — so that they alone would accept it upon themselves as an obligation, for now, by means of what was found written in the scroll from "a certain Jew" until here, the five factors that made light the miracle and the deliverance would be removed from their hearts, and their hearts would be well disposed to accept it as an obligation. But at first he asked of them only concerning that generation, and this is the meaning of "to confirm upon them" — that is, not yet upon their offspring — only to make it an obligation to observe the fourteenth day, which they had begun as a voluntary practice, and also to obligate them in the fifteenth day for Shushan, which they had not yet begun, as discussed. And this is the meaning of "as the days in which the Jews had rest" — that is, these being obligated on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth. And he further intended, in saying "as the days," etc., to preempt their saying: was not the essence of the miracle in the days of Passover, since it was then that they hanged Haman and his sons and the letters were turned from evil to good — and are not those the days of rejoicing, since Passover belongs to Hashem — so why institute yet other new days? To this he responds: "as the days in which the Jews had rest" — that is, in Adar — for after all that occurred at Passover, the dread of death did not depart from them until they reached the days of the actual reversal, for they remained as under the first letters, since a decree once written cannot be revoked. And this is the meaning of "as the days in which they rested, etc., and the month that was turned," etc. — to exclude the month of Nisan, for they had not yet had rest then, and also it is not "the month that was turned," etc. And concerning this acceptance — which pertained to that generation, to observe Purim year after year — it says "and the Jews accepted" in the singular, referring to that single generation; and it says "that which they had begun to do" — this is what we wrote, that they had begun of their own accord, as a voluntary practice, to observe it, and now they accepted upon themselves as an obligation that which they had begun of their own accord as a voluntary practice. And after all this was completed — that they had accepted upon themselves the obligation of these days of Purim — he then decided to impose upon them the obligation also upon their offspring and upon all who joined them, namely the converts; for once they had accepted it upon themselves, it would be easier afterward to have them accept it upon their offspring as well. Therefore, after he had sent letters for them to accept the obligation upon themselves, he wrote yet a second letter to have them accept it also upon their offspring. And this is the meaning of "and that which Mordecai wrote to them" — namely, what he wrote after Mordecai had written to them a second time; and the text of that letter is "for Haman son of Hammedatha," etc., until "therefore they called the days," etc.; and at the conclusion of the text of the letter it says, "therefore, concerning all the words of this letter," etc., "they confirmed and accepted" — more than what they had accepted in the first letter, for then it was upon them and not upon their offspring, whereas now, by means of this second letter, "they confirmed and accepted" upon themselves and upon their offspring, and therefore also upon those who joined them. And the necessity for this second letter, and the point of its statements — namely, to gain acceptance thereby also on behalf of their offspring — is this: for even regarding all the words of the Megillah that Mordecai wrote to them, from "a certain Jew" onward, they still had room to say: is it not believable that the calamity was directed only at ourselves and not at our offspring? And therefore the acceptance of the days of Purim, too, should rest upon us and not upon our offspring — for after all, even Haman's entire anger was directed only against Mordecai, for not bowing down and prostrating himself to him, and his whole intent and desire was directed only against him; and even though it was contemptible in his eyes to lay a hand on Mordecai alone, so that it spread also to all the grown men, it did not extend to the children and women. And this would be the point of his saying to the king, "let it be written to destroy them" — that is, the grown people, but not the offspring and the descendants. And presumably they would say that this is what was sealed in the letters of the officials, and not "to destroy and to slay from youth," etc. And this is in accordance with what we were compelled to establish above: that as for the first letters that were sent to the officials of the provinces, what was written in them was not made known, since it was not revealed openly to all the peoples, except that they should hold themselves ready for this day, without their knowing what this meant or on account of what. And also, after the second letters came, the first letters were no longer to be seen — out of regard for the honor of the king, lest he appear inconsistent, and also lest the king's will as expressed in the second letters be nullified thereby, for a decree once written in the king's name cannot be revoked — in such a way that they would not believe anyone who claimed that this had indeed been the content of the first letters, namely, to uproot their offspring as well; for even though Mordecai himself might testify that this was so, he had not actually seen it with his own eyes. And they would furthermore hold to this view, saying: is it conceivable that Haman would have been so brazen as to have written more than what he had said to the king, namely, "let it be written to destroy them"? For even though the king said to him, "and the people, to do with as seems good in your eyes," this would apply to the grown people, but not to their offspring. Second, for they would say to him: granted that Haman's heart was set on evil, to destroy them utterly, and that we sinned and rebelled and became liable before Hashem, and that the matter proceeded from Him — nevertheless, it is not conceivable that the decree applied to any but the adults, and not to those who had not yet reached the age of liability to punishment from Heaven, namely those under twenty, let alone the young children who had not sinned; and if Haman sought to uproot everyone, God would not have delivered them into his hand, as indeed happened. Third, that also it was not decreed by King Ahasuerus himself to destroy, slay, and exterminate their offspring as well; for behold, Haman's statement to him was only, "let it be written to destroy them," and this is a word that bears two possible meanings — either destruction of property or destruction of lives. And an Israelite might well say: who knows whether the king's intent was for destruction of property, and even if he did intend destruction of lives, it was directed against them, the adults, and not against their offspring; for what Haman had written in the letters, its precise text was not made known to the king — rather, with his permission, Haman wrote as he himself saw fit, and the king did not know the details, and it was in his mind that Haman would write nothing beyond what he had said to him, "let it be written to destroy them" — and therefore he commanded him to seal it with his ring. But after the matter became known to him through the queen, he commanded that the reverse be written, saying, "my servant deceived me, and it was his own desire, and he acted on it" — and so the matter would seem light in the eyes of the common people, who would refuse to accept it upon themselves and upon their offspring, saying, it is enough to accept it for our own generation. Therefore, what did Mordecai do? He went back and wrote a second letter to remove this doubt from their minds, so that they would accept the obligation upon themselves and upon their offspring and upon all who joined them. And this is the meaning of its saying, "and the Jews accepted that which they had begun to do," as discussed — that is, for their own generation, by virtue of the first letter — and also "that which Mordecai wrote to them," a second letter, the wording of which is "for Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite," etc., until it says "on account of the name of the Pur"; and at the conclusion of the text of the letter it says, "therefore, concerning all the words of this second letter," etc., and they further added, "and they confirmed and accepted upon themselves and upon their offspring" — and therefore it is stated in the plural, to include all future generations, whereas until now they had accepted it only upon themselves, by virtue of the first letter. And the point of the second letter is: let it not arise in your minds to refrain from accepting the obligation also upon your offspring, by reasoning that perhaps Haman's whole anger was directed only against Mordecai, for not bowing and prostrating to him, and it was him alone that he intended to kill — though, since it seemed contemptible to him to lay a hand on Mordecai alone, it extended also to his people, yet not a sentence of death as for Mordecai, but rather "to destroy them," meaning destruction of property or destruction of lives — but only upon them themselves, not upon their offspring and descendants. Or perhaps you would say that even though Haman's heart was bent on evil, the matter did not come from Hashem, but rather that "he built and Hashem tore down." And also, do not say that the king's heart, too, was not set on destroying the entire offspring of Israel — in such a way that the account of the evil decree would seem light in your eyes, so that it would seem foreign to you to accept the obligation also upon your offspring. For as to the first, know that Haman, whom I mentioned in the first letter — since he is the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, descended from Agag his king, and bears an ancient hatred from the days of Saul — is "the persecutor of all the Jews," and not only of Mordecai, who did not bow to him, nor only of the great among the people, but the persecutor of all the Jews — which, by its inclusiveness, encompasses everyone, even the young children, so as not to leave a remnant. That is to say: therefore it is fitting that you accept the obligation upon your offspring as well, for they too were included in that very miracle. And as to the second, should it arise in your minds that the decree was not from Hashem — know that Haman had originally planned against the Jews only to destroy them, and not their offspring as well; and nevertheless, though he cast the lot only for what was in his own mind, still that very lot came out from heaven decreeing "to confound them and to destroy them" — twice what was in his mind — and this accords with the view of the Midrash, that a letter of destruction was written in the heavenly court. And as to the third, should it arise in your minds that the matter did not proceed from King Ahasuerus, and that he did not intend to authorize anything beyond "to destroy them" — meaning either destruction of property or destruction of themselves — but not also the destruction of children, for so Haman had told him, and it arose in his mind that this was the full extent of the evil deed and no more — know then that this is not so; rather, even if Haman's own plan was not for total annihilation but only for the destruction of the lives of the great ones among them, the king did not understand Haman's plan to be limited to that alone, but understood it to encompass everyone, and he agreed with him on everything. For behold, "and when she came before the king," the king said to Esther, "with the letter, his plan shall be reversed," etc. — that is to say: even though the first letters preceded and cannot be revoked by the reversing letter that I shall write, nevertheless this I will do for you, to reinforce this second letter: that together with the letter I shall write, I shall also attach to it another matter, namely, that his evil plan, which he devised against the Jews, shall return upon his own head — that they shall hang him and his sons upon the gallows — so that dread and fear would fall upon those who might seek to uphold the first letters. And the sense of the verse is: consider and see that it was not in the king's mind, when he agreed with Haman, that Haman's plan concerned only the great ones — that "the fathers eat sour grapes" but not that "the children's teeth are set on edge" — rather, he understood that Haman's plan was also for the destruction of children; for behold, when she came before the king, he said to Esther concerning the letter that was written, "I will cause his plan, which he devised, to return upon his own head" — and indeed they hanged him and his sons upon the gallows. If so, one must conclude: had it been in the king's mind, upon hearing "let it be written to destroy them," that this meant only the destruction of property or the lives of the great ones, and not their children — why did he hang his sons together with him? That would have been more than what he had planned against the Jews! Yet he, the king, said only, "his plan that he devised against the Jews shall return" — and so, there is no doubt that in what the king understood by "let it be written to destroy them," the destruction of the offspring was also included in his understanding of the matter as a whole, and nevertheless the king agreed with him. So too now, concerning your offspring, it is fitting that you accept the obligation, since the decree from the king was, from the outset, also directed against the offspring. And lest you say: granted it is true that the hearts of both the king and Haman were set also against the offspring of Israel, yet as for Hashem, who would believe that He decreed also against the little ones, and how much more so infants who had not sinned? — therefore he says: behold, here is yet another proof for you, that the decree from Heaven was also directed against their offspring; for this validates the fact that the court of the Great Sanhedrin, by the holy spirit, called these days "Purim" in the plural, after the name of the single lot — which would otherwise seem strange indeed — except that this is because the single lot was doubled: for when he cast the lot, he had not intended to destroy their offspring as well, yet it came out for him doubled, "to confound them and to destroy them" — that is, both them and their offspring. And at the conclusion of the words of this second letter, it states what additional obligation they accepted, beyond their acceptance concerning the first — and this is its statement, "therefore, concerning the words of this letter," which is the second. And also, apart from the words of the letter itself, they saw two compelling proofs that the decree was certainly upon them and upon their offspring. For behold, from what they saw was done "for such a thing" — that is, from what they saw was done regarding the decree, measure for measure — they recognized that concerning the offspring, too, it had been in his heart, and the king had agreed with Haman — namely, that they also hanged Haman's sons; and also what we wrote above, that they did to their enemies according to their enemies' own wish — that is, "to destroy, to slay, and to exterminate, from young to old, children and women" — exactly as it had been their enemies' wish to do to Israel. This is the meaning of the verse, "which the king granted to the Jews," etc., "to destroy, to slay, and to exterminate all the forces of any people or province that were assailing them, along with their children and women, and to plunder their goods, in one day" — from this they derived a proof, since Hashem gave them dominion over the offspring of their enemies as well; from this they concluded that a like decree had been decreed against them, Israel, as well. And therefore Hashem turned their evil back upon their own heads. And this is the meaning of "and what did they see for such a thing" — that is, concerning what they saw Hashem do to them on account of what they had schemed to do to Israel. There is yet a second argument, and it is this: even though the writing that had been sent to their officials at the time of the evil decree, which had been written "to destroy," etc., "from young," etc., as discussed above, did not reach them — for it had only been made known, unspecified, that they should be ready for this day — nevertheless, because what did reach them was the letters of reversal, in which it was written "to destroy, to slay, and to exterminate all the forces of any people or province that were assailing them, along with their children and women, in one day" — from what reached them, they could infer what had been in the first letters that had not reached them; for these latter letters corresponded to the former, and it was on the basis of the former that the matter was reversed, in such a way that from what was found written in the letters that did reach them, they could know the content of what had not reached them. This is the meaning of "and what befell them." Therefore "they confirmed and accepted upon themselves and upon their offspring and upon all who joined them" — namely, the converts — since, given that destruction had been decreed also upon the offspring of Israel, there would then be no converts either. And according to our approach, it becomes understandable why it says "they confirmed and accepted" — words that appear to be out of their logical order, since acceptance precedes confirmation. This is why our Rabbis, of blessed memory, explained "they confirmed" as referring to what they had already accepted at Sinai — as the explanation of that statement will appear in our commentary on the Torah, with Hashem's help. But according to its plain sense, our intent is as we said above: that Mordecai was shrewd enough not to tell them at the outset that they should also take on the obligation for their offspring, lest it be too heavy for them; therefore he brought the matter about gradually, line by line — so that through the first letter he imposed upon them the obligation for themselves, and afterward, once they had accepted the yoke of obligation for their own generation, this served as a preparation to add, subsequently, through the second letter, the obligation also upon their offspring. And this the verse reveals, after concluding this second letter, by saying "they confirmed and accepted" — that is to say, that as a result of what they had confirmed at first through the first letter, it followed that they now also accepted, in the second letter, the obligation upon themselves and upon their offspring.

The Questions: What is [the meaning of] "and Mordecai wrote these things" — what were "the things"? "And [Mordecai] wrote" — after Mordecai saw that the mukafim had not accepted upon themselves the days of Purim, because they did not know the full force of the miracle — that they too had in truth been in danger on that very day, since Haman's decree had not yet been annulled and was still in force, only that the miracle was that fear of Mordecai fell upon the officials and they concealed the first letters — he was therefore compelled to write to them all the matters at length, and these are the matters that will be explained in verses 24-25. And he related to them that the first letters had not been annulled, and that they too had been in danger, and he made these things known to the whole community of Israel.

The Questions: Why did he decree that they observe both the fourteenth day and the fifteenth day? And this in particular is very strange: is it because in Shushan they did not have rest until the fifteenth day, that he decreed that in the walled cities Purim should be observed on the fifteenth? And what reason is there in this — what do they have to do with Shushan? And if he did this in honor of the royal city, he should have instituted that Purim be [everywhere] on the fifteenth. Moreover, it is not clear what honor this would be to Shushan. "To enjoin" (lekayem) — and according to what was explained above, Mordecai saw fit to distinguish between the perazim and the mukafim, that the perazim would observe [Purim] on the fourteenth and the mukafim on the fifteenth. And there is a sound reason for this: Haman's decree, which was to destroy and annihilate all the Jews in one day, certainly was not limited such that they had permission to kill only on the thirteenth day, with the result that any Jews who were not killed on the thirteenth day would thereby be spared — for Haman's intent was to wipe them out as a nation, so that the name of Israel would never again be remembered. And certainly the intent was that on the thirteenth day they would begin to destroy them in all the king's provinces, and how much more so — if afterward a Jew who had hidden on the thirteenth day were to appear, they would kill him afterward as well; and likewise, if in some one city the Jews took refuge on the thirteenth day and [their enemies] were unable to destroy them on that day when the decree stated they should be killed, then afterward [they would still kill them]. Based on this, after the final letters arrived — which stated that Israel had permission to kill their adversaries on the thirteenth day — this permission was limited only to the thirteenth day, for the decree was not that they [the Jews] should destroy all of them [their enemies]. And the proof is that when Esther wished that the Jews in Shushan should also kill on the fourteenth day, the king had to issue a new decree for this, as it says, "and a decree was given in Shushan" — for the first decree pertained only to one day. And consequently, when the fourteenth day arrived, the Jews were in great danger, for since Haman's first decree had not been annulled, and it had granted permission to kill the Jews even after the thirteenth day too, had their enemies risen up against them to kill them, the officials would not have been able to save them or grant them the authority to fight against their enemies, since their [own] authorization had expired on the fourteenth day, and from then on the king's decree commanded only that the enemies of the Jews should rule over them, not that they should rule over their enemies. And only after the fourteenth day passed, and they saw that the officials had entirely concealed the first decree, and their enemies had not raised a hand [against them], only then was the essence of the miracle made known. Now, since they made Purim on the day that they had rest from their enemies — behold, all the mukafim did not have rest until the fifteenth day, and therefore he decreed that they should observe Purim on the fifteenth day. But the perazim, where the officials were not present at all, and they themselves had overpowered their enemies, it became known to them that the danger had passed immediately, on the fourteenth day itself, for since they had prevailed on the thirteenth, they no longer feared; therefore he instituted Purim for them on the fourteenth day.

"On the days on which they had rest" — meaning, each one should make Purim on the day he had rest from his enemies, the perazim on the fourteenth and the mukafim on the fifteenth, as above. And now he explains why he decreed the making of feasting and the sending of portions. He says, "and the month which was turned for them" — for two things were turned for them in this month: first, from sorrow to gladness; and second, from mourning to a good day (Yom Tov). And corresponding to the gladness, they should make days of feasting and gladness; and corresponding to the Yom Tov — since Mordecai could not now institute that they make it a Yom Tov, for it is forbidden to decree new Yamim Tovim upon the community of Israel as a whole — he instituted gifts to the poor, which the perazim had not taken upon themselves of their own accord. For the purpose of a Yom Tov is to withdraw on it from the vanities of the world for the service of Hashem and His Torah, and corresponding to this he commanded that they give charity, which is likewise a commandment (mitzvah).

"and the month which was turned to them, etc." (verse 22). The reason this is attached to the month is that Haman used to say that Adar, being the last of the months, indicates that Israel has an end. But this month was turned to gladness, for on the contrary, in it is the endurance of Israel by virtue of Hashem, blessed be He, who sustains Israel — for He, blessed be He, is the final Form for Israel, as was explained above. Therefore it says, "and this month was turned." "from sorrow to gladness, and from mourning into a good day" — He mentions two things. That which was turned "from sorrow to gladness" — namely, that they had been fearful of Haman, and they attained gladness, which is the perfection of man. And more than this, "from mourning"* — which is absence/loss, and loss is an evil — was turned "into a good day," which is good. And it does not say only "from mourning into a good day," for even though it is written above (4:3), "great mourning among the Jews," and this was because death had been decreed upon them, and mourning is fitting in connection with death — nevertheless the death was not actually carried out upon even one of them; rather, they were only in fear of it. But "sorrow" — this they certainly had: pain and sorrow. And another explanation: "from sorrow to gladness" — this is said of the bodily faculty, which is in pain, and it was turned to gladness. "Mourning" is said* of the non-bodily faculty, of which it is fitting to say that it is like mourning. And it says "from mourning into a good day," because "a good day" is fitting to say of the non-bodily faculty, when a person is in divine perfection. And it is known that the good day (Yom Tov), which is a holy day, pertains to the non-bodily faculty, and man has divine perfection [through it] — and this is clear. "and of sending portions, a man to his fellow, etc." This commandment applies on Purim more than on [an ordinary] good day (Yom Tov) — why is this commandment [given] more on this day than on a [regular] good day? But this matter is known from what was explained above: that Purim belongs to Israel because they were victorious over the seed of Amalek, who are the greatest enemies and adversaries. This is because Israel is the opposite of the seed of Amalek, for as long as the seed of Amalek* is in the world, His Name is not one (Rashi, Exodus 17:15). And Israel unify His Name evening and morning, and for this reason they are one nation, and cleave to Him, blessed be He, who is One. And because Israel is one nation, it is fitting that there be within them [the quality of being] one nation, and that they have complete connection and fellowship. Therefore it falls to them to sustain the destitute, on the ground that he is his brother and they are one nation — as it is written in every* [place], regarding the commandment of charity, "your brother" — for because they are our brothers, charity is to be given. And this is why the commandment applies more specifically on this day alone, both the sending of portions and gifts to the poor. And above (verse 19), the sending of gifts to the poor is not mentioned. This supports the explanation we have given: that above, [Scripture] comes to say that since Hashem, blessed be He, had brought them out from Haman, who had come to destroy them, and Israel were now in a state of completeness — the opposite of what they had been before this, when Israel had been given over to death and to utter loss — it was therefore fitting that they be in complete perfection, to make days of feasting and gladness and a good day, and also to bestow good upon others. And therefore it says (verse 19), "and sending portions, a man to his fellow." But gifts to the poor is a different matter: one gives and bestows upon the poor man because the poor man needs it. Now if there is perfection for the one who gives and bestows, is there not then a deficiency in the recipient, who is the poor man? Therefore only "sending portions, a man to his fellow" is mentioned there, but "gifts to the poor" is not on account of his own perfection alone, but rather on account of the deficiency of the recipient, who is poor. But here (verse 22), [Scripture] comes to mention all the things incumbent upon them to do, and therefore it mentions both of them — for ultimately, by virtue of his being in a state of perfection, he must also bestow upon the poor man, because he is his brother. Therefore you will find throughout the entire Megillah that when they came to be victorious, it is written (above 4:16), "go, gather together all the Jews," "the Jews gathered themselves" (above, verse 2) — and all this is because, inasmuch as Israel is one nation, Hashem, blessed be He, who is* One, is therefore with them, and by this they prevail over Haman and his seed, who are the opposite of the unity of Hashem, blessed be He. And it is for this reason that specifically on Purim this commandment applies: sending portions, a man to his fellow, and gifts to the poor — because these commandments depend upon Israel being one nation more than any other of the nations.

"and took upon them" (ve-qibbel) — like Aramaic usage; and it comes in the singular, [meaning] that each and every one accepted, similar to "[her] branches run over the wall" (banot tza'adah alei shur) (Genesis 49:22). Or, the word "kol" (all) is to be understood as elided, and the first [explanation] is the correct one. And a grammarian said that "ve-qibbel" refers back to Mordecai, and it takes two objects; if so, what would be the sense of "that which they had begun to do"? Rather, it means that they accepted/confirmed what they had done at first, for they observed Purim [again] the following year. "and that which Mordecai had written" (ve-et asher katav Mordekhai) — to do so every single year.

The questions: It implies that they accepted two things — what they had begun to do, and what Mordecai had written — but were these not both one and the same thing, that they should make [these] days of feasting and joy? "and took upon them" — Accordingly, [the verse] tells that all Israel accepted both what they had begun to do — namely, that the unwalled towns (perazim) took upon themselves the fourteenth day, which they had begun to do on their own — and what Mordecai wrote to them, that the walled cities (mukafim) should observe the fifteenth, which they had not done on their own.

"and the Jews took upon them, etc." (verse 23). It says "ve-qibbel ha-Yehudim" ("and the Jews took upon them") in the singular form, because they all accepted it with gladness and with willingness, and with one voice said "we will do and we will hear" (Exodus 24:7) — this is [the meaning of] "ve-qibbel" [in the singular] — and there were no divided opinions. And furthermore, [Scripture] means to say that this acceptance came about for the reason we have stated, that Israel were victorious over Haman by virtue of their being one nation, as we said before this; and therefore, on this account, it was fitting for them to take these days upon themselves. ["for Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the adversary of all the Jews, etc." (verse 24)] (— "and the Jews took upon them that which they had begun, etc." —). Explanation: what it says, "the adversary of all the Jews," is not because he was jealous of them, or because the deeds of Israel were not upright in his eyes; rather, it was the very essence of being Jews that Haman hated. Therefore it says "the adversary of all the Jews" — since he was the adversary of all the Jews, this hatred was accordingly not on account of any jealousy, but rather because he hated anyone at all who was called by the name "Jew." And therefore, "he cast the pur [lot] against them, to discomfit them and to destroy them" — it says "to discomfit them," which pertains to the soul, which is subject to confusion and dread; "to destroy them" pertains to their bodies.

For Haman, the son of Hamdasa. Devised to terrify them and destroy them.

"For Haman son of Hammedata" — the meaning is: it is [only] right that they should accept this [obligation], for had it not been for this salvation, their name and the name of their offspring would have been blotted out; and they should remember it every year, to give thanks to Hashem, by whom deeds are weighed (1 Samuel 2:3). The dagesh in the mem of "lehummam" is due to the missing [second letter of the] doubled mem.

The questions: Why does [the verse] recount here that "Haman the son of Hammedatha, etc.," when this was already known and familiar? And why does it say "devised to destroy them" and then "cast pur to discomfit them and to destroy them," adding "to discomfit them"? And why does it mention the pur? "because Haman" — Now [the verse] recounts what Mordecai wrote, referring back to what was stated in verse 20, "and Mordecai wrote," informing them of the strength of the miracle and its meaning. First: lest they think that the hatred was only because Mordecai did not bow down to Haman, and did not extend to the whole nation, it therefore states that Haman, since he was an Agagite of the seed of Amalek, retained the enmity of his forefathers, and on this account was an enemy to all the Jews, and wished to destroy them all together. Second: that the celestial order (ha-ma'arakhah) was also then arrayed against the Jews and aiding in their harm, for at first he intended only "to destroy them," which is to destroy the form of the nation and its religion, as above; but at the time he "cast the pur" — that is, the lot — based on the mazal and the celestial order of that month and day, [his intent was] also "to discomfit them" and to annihilate them through slaughter and destruction.

"and had cast pur, that is, the lot" (verse 24) — as for what it says, using the doubled expression "had cast pur, that is, the lot," rather than simply saying "had cast a lot": likewise above it is written (3:7), "had cast pur, that is, the lot." [The reason is] that even though this was indeed a lot, it was not like an ordinary lot — for if it were, anyone could cast a lot. But above it is written (there), "had cast pur, that is, the lot, before Haman"; and since it is written "before Haman," this implies that there was one particular person who cast the lot, one who was an expert and wise in this matter. Therefore the pur is [a matter of] wisdom, only that in any case it is still [technically] a lot — therefore it says "had cast pur, that is, the lot." And the meaning of "pur" is "fragments" [perurim], for he cast a lot to determine on which day of the days of the year he would carry out the deed he wished to do. And the days of the year are like small fragments into which the year is divided, and the lot determines on which day of the days of the year he would do what he would do. And by this is resolved what it says (verse 26), "therefore they called these days Purim," in the plural — but is there not only a single lot here? Rather, the single lot is called "Purim" in the plural only because the lot concerns which of the days [it would fall on] — since the days of the year are divided into many days, like the fragments, and the lot [determines] which day — and therefore they are called "Purim"*.

But when she came. [When] Esther [came] to the king to appeal to him. He directed in writing. The king stated orally and commanded to write letters that his [Haman’s] wicked scheme should return upon his own head.

"but when she came before the king" (u-ve-vo'ah lifnei ha-melekh) — the meaning is that Haman had planned to destroy the Jews, and when Esther came to the king and pleaded for her people, the king said that it should be written, together with the letter, that his evil scheme should return [upon his own head]; therefore the first letters were annulled — meaning, therefore [came] the second [letter].

The questions: The commentators struggled with the word "and when it came" (u-ve'voah), since it is not stated who came; and what is "with the letter" (im ha-sefer), which has no explanation? "and when it came" (u-ve'voah) — Now [the verse] recounts how, besides the fact that the miracle was already great in itself, in that it was against the celestial order and the mazal, it was also great on that very day. For "u-ve'voah" refers back to the "device" (machashavah) mentioned in the previous verse, "when the device of Haman came before the king" — that is, the time when the king became aware of his device, that he had devised evil, yet he did not recall the earlier letters, but only said "with the letter" (im ha-sefer) — meaning that through the letter itself his device would return upon his own head. For since the king was unable to recall the earlier letter, he only left the earlier letters [in force] and wrote other letters; and because of this he was compelled to hang Haman, so that the officials would fear lest they too be punished, and would not concern themselves with the earlier letters but only with the later ones. Accordingly, it became known to [the Jews] that the earlier letters had not been annulled, and consequently the miracle remained in its full force also on the thirteenth of Adar, as above.

"and when she came before the king, etc." (verse 25) — Mordechai wrote all this above (verse 20), "and Mordechai wrote these things, etc.... and when she came before the king." He should have mentioned her name, saying "and when Esther the queen came, etc.," but he did not wish to mention her name explicitly. For had he written "Esther" without writing "Esther the queen," that would be a disgrace to her before the nations, in that he did not mention that she was queen. But if he were to say "Esther the queen" — now they said (Megillah 13a) that the word "le-vat" [as a daughter] (above, 2:7) means nothing other than "le-vayit" [as a household, i.e., a wife], and that she had become his [Mordechai's] wife — so how could Mordechai* himself call her by the name "queen"? Surely Esther would object to this, for it would be as though Mordechai himself were admitting that she was the wife of Ahasuerus, once she* is [called] queen. But in other places where [the text] calls her "queen," that is because that is how it appears [to others], since she is [seen to be] with Ahasuerus. But Mordechai himself, who knows that she is his wife — if he were to say "Esther the queen," he himself would be admitting that she belongs to Ahasuerus. Therefore he did not mention her name at all, but said only "and when she came." Now one should not object: if so, then other people would find it difficult that he did not mention her name, and it would be as though he had written explicitly that she is his wife. This is not a difficulty, since they did not know that she was his wife, they would not attribute it to that; rather, they would say that this is a shortened form of speech. Or, that everyone knows that Esther the queen came before the king [so no name was needed]. And it is written that "he commanded — with the letter," meaning that he told these words to the scribe, that he should write this in the letter. And you should not say that the scribes wrote it on their own, and only after the writing was the letter brought before the king and the king agreed to it. Rather, concerning this it says "he commanded — with the letter," for he himself said this of his own accord. And it says, "his device shall return upon his own head." This alludes to what we said above, that Israel and Amalek are utterly separate/divided from the root of their origin. Therefore it says "his device shall return upon his own head" — meaning that he sought to uproot the very origin of Israel, to the point that they would no longer exist; therefore his device returns upon his own head, to uproot his own origin. For "head" [rosh] denotes "origin/beginning," from the language of rosh [head] and rishon [first]. And Haman, and also* his offspring, would be uprooted from their very origin, just as he had wished to uproot the origin of Israel. And in the Gemara (Megillah 16b): "'he commanded — with the letter' — it should have said 'she commanded'!" Rav Nachman said: let him state by mouth what is written in the letter. And Rashi z"l explained (there) that its meaning is that what Esther came to plead with him — all this shall be recounted every single year. "With the letter" — meaning that the Megillah should be read as written text before them. But this explanation is very forced, for the flow of the verses is difficult according to it. Also, what it says, "let it be stated by mouth," would not have needed to be said — it would have sufficed to say "let it be stated in the letter" — and certainly its meaning is that the Megillah should be read aloud. And it appears that its meaning is as we have said, and as Rashi z"l explained in his commentary on the Megillah — and thus the meaning of "when she came before the king" is that Esther requested that the king state by mouth what was written in the letter, that is, the epistle. For above it is written that the epistle was written by Mordechai, because [the king] had given him permission to write as he saw fit, as it is written (above, 8:10), "and he wrote in the name of King Ahasuerus, and sealed it with the king's ring." Therefore she requested that he state by mouth what was written in the letter, so that people would hear this matter from his own mouth, and thereby the matter would have greater permanence. And Mordechai wrote all this to all the Jews. And accordingly, we may well read the text as: "she said to him, let him state by mouth what is written in the letter." And so Ahasuerus did — he stated by mouth what was written in the letter. For it was fitting that he explicitly proclaim the rescue, and not [merely] say, "and you write as you see fit," lest people say that it was not Ahasuerus's own intent that all this be done. And in my opinion the correct version of the text (Megillah 16b) is as follows: "'she commanded' would be required — rather, [the answer is that] he stated by mouth what was written in the letter." Meaning that Ahasuerus stated by mouth all the words that were written in the letter, and by this everything accords with its plain sense. But if we were to explain the words of the Gemara as Rashi explained them, we would have to say that Esther requested that Israel should read this Megillah aloud, because perhaps Ahasuerus would object to certain matters written in the Megillah that were not to his honor. She therefore made this request concerning that, and the answer to this was that he should state by mouth what was written in the letter. But the explanation we have given is the correct one.

For this reason ... because of all that is narrated in this letter. These days were designated, and therefore it [the Megillah] was written for the future generations to know. Why they saw fit. Those who did these deeds, that they did them. And what happened to them as a result. What did Achashveirosh see that he used the sacred vessels, “and what happened to them as a result,” that Satan came and danced among them and slew Vashti. What did Haman see that he became jealous of Mordechai, “and what happened to him as a result,” that they hanged him and his sons. What did Mordechai see that he did not kneel or prostate himself, and what did Esther see that she invited Haman? — Notes: (8) Maseches Megillah 19a.

"because of all the words of this letter" (al kol divrei ha-iggeret ha-zot) — from the same root as "she gathers her food in the harvest" (agerah ba-qatzir ma'akhalah) (Proverbs 6:8); and the meaning [of iggeret] is a gathering-together of words. "and that which they had seen" (u-mah ra'u) — because they had witnessed the wonders. "and that which had come to them" (u-mah higia) — by way of [what reached them through] the ears.

The questions: What is the intent of the naming [of the day]? And why the repetition of "therefore" (al ken) regarding "all the words of this letter," etc., which has no explanation? "therefore" — [Malbim] explains that the name they called these days, "Purim," was after the name of the "pur," so as to serve as a remembrance of the strength of the miracle, which the name "Purim" indicates: that Haman's "pur" [lot] was overturned into "our lot" (puranu), for the mazal was then against Israel and was overturned by the providence of Hashem, who overturns the celestial order (ha-ma'arakhot). "Therefore" [in its second occurrence] refers to what follows, meaning: "and because of all the words of this letter" — that informed them of everything in detail, how the miracle remained in its full strength also on that day; for through the letter it became known to them what they had seen concerning this, and the whole matter in detail.

"Therefore they called these days Purim, etc." (verse 26). One should not raise the difficulty of why they called them "Purim" in the plural, for this has already been explained above concerning (verse 24) "to cast pur, that is, the lot" — see there. One can also say, regarding what is stated, "therefore he called these days Purim," that this refers to the fourteenth day and the fifteenth day in Shushan, because they are distinguished from one another: on the fourteenth they killed their enemies, while the fifteenth is a day of rest, feasting, and rejoicing (above, verse 18). Even though these two days were both fixed by one and the same lot, nevertheless, since this day is not like that day, and they are distinguished from each other, they were called "Purim" in the plural. "Therefore, because of all the words of this letter, etc." Explanation: the word "therefore" here refers back to what was said, "therefore they called these days Purim" — that is, so that these days would be distinguished and known apart from the rest of the days of the year, and that they would observe them every single year, and through this all that is written in this letter would be recalled, and by this means they would [continue to] know the miracles that they saw with their own eyes and the redemption that came to them thereby. And thus Targum Yonatan explains it. However, in the Gemara (Megillah 19a) they said: From where does one read the Megillah so as to fulfill one's obligation with it? Rabbi Meir says: the whole of it. Rabbi Yehuda says: from "There was a Jewish man" (above, 2:5). Rabbi Yosei says: from "After these things" (above, 3:1). Rabbi Shimon says: from "On that night" (above, 6:1). Rav Huna said: from here — "and what they saw concerning this matter and what had come to them." According to the one who says the whole of it: "what did he see" — Ahasuerus, that he made use of the vessels of the Temple; "concerning this matter" — that seventy years had been completed according to his own reckoning, and yet they had not been redeemed; "and what had come to them" — Satan came and danced among them, and killed Vashti. According to the one who says from "There was a Jewish man": "what did he see" — Mordechai, that he grew jealous of Haman; "concerning this matter" — that he [Haman] had made himself into an object of idolatry; "and what had come to them" — that a miracle occurred for them. According to the one who says from "After these things": "what did he see" — Haman, that he grew jealous of all the Jews; "concerning this matter" — because "Mordechai would not bow down or prostrate himself" (above, 3:2); "and what had come to them" — that they hanged him and his sons upon the gallows. And according to the one who says from "On that night": "what did he see" — Ahasuerus, to bring the book of records; "concerning this matter" — that Esther invited Haman, and this brought to his [Ahasuerus's] mind the thought of devising a plan against that man, to kill him; "and what had come upon them" — that a miracle occurred for them. Now, it appears that they too explain the verse "therefore, because of all the words of this letter" just as we have explained, except that they explain "what they saw concerning this matter" as referring to the beginning of the matter, which was the cause and the start of the essential redemption, while "and what had come to them" is the culmination of the redemption. And Rabbi Meir holds that the whole of it must be read, because the killing of Vashti was of benefit toward the redemption, in that it enabled Esther to come in her place. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that one reads from "There was a Jewish man" (above, 2:5), because here Mordechai is mentioned as being "a Jewish man" — on account of his having given up his life rather than commit idolatry, just as he did with respect to Haman — and therefore (above, 3:2) "he would not prostrate himself," and from him came the redemption itself. And the one who says one reads from "After these things" (above, 3:1) holds that Hashem, may He be blessed, redeemed them from the trouble that came upon them, and this is the beginning of the redemption; and the beginning of the trouble was that the king promoted Haman (there). And the one who says one reads from (above, 6:1) "On that night" holds that the beginning of the redemption itself was from "on that night, [the king's] sleep fled."

Anyone associated with them. Proselytes who are destined to convert to Judaism. — Notes: (9) They too were affected by Haman’s decree because he tried to destroy the nation they would embrace at a future time. As written. That the Scroll [of Esther] should be written in the Ashuri script. — Notes: (10) Ibid.

"those who joined themselves" (ha-nilvim) — they are the converts. "so that it should not fail" (ve-lo ya'avor) — no Jew is permitted to transgress it. "according to their writing" (ke-khtavam) — the meaning is that the Megillah should be read [as written]; and since Ezra the Scribe divided the verses, and for many years afterward there was no one [to continue this practice], our sages of blessed memory instructed that the reader should pause only at the end of a verse. "every year" (be-khol shanah va-shanah) — whether a common year or a leap year. And now he mentions what the Jews confirmed, just as Mordecai had written to obligate them. And the meaning of "and that these days should be remembered and kept" (Esther 9:28) is that all the families and all the provinces should do so, so that no one should think that he is exempt [merely] because he was in a place where there was no Jew in the days of the miracles, or in a newly [settled] province.

The questions: What is [the meaning of] "so as it should not fail" (ve-lo ya'avor)? And what is "according to their writing and according to their appointed time" (ke-khtavam ve-khizmanam)? "they ordained" — Therefore "they ordained and took upon them": First, that the acceptance of Purim should include also the generations to come after them, and therefore it says "upon them and upon their seed." Second, "so as it should not fail" (ve-lo ya'avor) — so that it should not be like other decrees that the Sages decreed, where a court greater than another in wisdom and in number can annul the words of another court; but in this case they stipulated that it should not pass away or be annulled in any manner. Third, that the two days should be observed — the unwalled towns (perazim) on the fourteenth and the walled cities (mukafim) on the fifteenth. Fourth, "according to their writing" (ke-khtavam) — through the reading of the Megillah.

"the Jews confirmed (kiyemu) and took upon themselves (ve-kibbelu), etc." (verse 27). The verse writes "kiyemu" (they confirmed) first and "kibbelu" (they took upon themselves) afterward, whereas by reasoning it should have written "kibbelu" first and "kiyemu" afterward. However, [the reason is] that at first they began to act, when they killed their enemies (above, verse 16), and made a feast and rejoicing on the fourteenth and fifteenth (above, verses 17-18). And now, in the second year, when they again observed it as a festival day, by this they confirmed what they had done at first, and therefore it is written "kiyemu." And afterward it is written "ve-kibbelu," meaning that they were also accepting it for the future — and this is "ve-kibbelu." And as for the fact that it is written [ketiv] "kibbel" (singular) but read [keri] as "kibbelu" (plural) — as was explained above, this acceptance was one that the court (beit din) of Israel took upon themselves, and this is "kibbel" in the singular, which is stated regarding the court. But the reading (keri) is "kibbelu," because every single individual in Israel took it upon themselves just as the court took it upon themselves. But "kiyemu" is in the plural, because each person fulfills the commandment for himself individually, whereas the acceptance belongs to the court. Therefore it is written "ve-kibbel" [singular], yet nevertheless this is considered as though all of Israel were accepting it, and therefore we read it "ve-kibbelu" [plural]. And in the Gemara it is stated (Megillah 7a) that Esther was said with divine inspiration (ruach ha-kodesh), for it is written (above, 6:6) "And Haman said in his heart." And there [the Gemara] brings many Tannaim. And it says there: Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: Had I been there, I would have said to them something better than all of them, for it is said, "the Jews confirmed and took upon themselves" — they confirmed above what they had accepted below. [Thus far the Gemara.] This comes to explain why it is written "kiyemu ve-kibbelu" (they confirmed and took upon themselves), and it would not have sufficed to say only one of the two, "kiyemu" or "kibbelu." And he said that the reason it is written "kiyemu ve-kibbelu" is to teach you that this commandment of reading the Megillah is considered as though Hashem, may He be blessed, commanded it — since it was agreed to above [in heaven] regarding this commandment, it is considered that Hashem commanded it. And it is not like other commandments that are rabbinic (mi-de-rabbanan), where the lower court alone decreed them; rather, this commandment is considered to be a commandment from Hashem. And it is also not like other commandments that come from above alone, and not from the court below as well; rather [this commandment comes] both from below and from above. And this is certainly considered a very great reinforcement, when the commandment is both from below and from above. And in the Gemara, in the chapter [called] "Rabbi Akiva" (Shabbat 88a): "And they stood at the base of the mountain" (Exodus 19:17) — Rav Avdimi bar Chama said: this teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, overturned the mountain over them like a barrel, and said to them: If you accept the Torah, good; and if not, there will be your burial. Rav Acha bar Yaakov said: from here [we learn] a great mode'a (protest of duress, i.e. grounds to claim the acceptance was coerced and thus invalid) against the Torah. Rava said: even so, they accepted it again in the days of Achashverosh, for it is written "the Jews confirmed and took upon themselves" — they confirmed [now] what they had already accepted [then]. This also comes to resolve why it is written "kiyemu" first and "kibbelu" afterward. And the explanation is: through this — that they confirmed [kiyemu] the Megillah of Esther — they [thereby] accepted [kibbelu] upon themselves what it had been fitting for them to accept at Mount Sinai. For in the days of Mordechai and Esther, when they took upon themselves the reading of the Megillah — and it is one commandment, and it is as though it were written in the Torah, for so they said in tractate Megillah (14a): forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses arose for Israel, and all of them neither subtracted from nor added to the Torah of Moshe, except for the reading of the Megillah. What is the source for this? etc. Therefore, when they confirmed this commandment — and this came from themselves, and was not decreed upon them [from without] — thereby they accepted upon themselves all the commandments, by a kal va-chomer (an a fortiori inference): for this commandment, which they had not heard from Hashem that He wanted them to accept, they nevertheless accepted upon themselves; the other commandments, regarding which they had heard that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted them to accept them (Exodus 19:5), all the more so would they have accepted them upon themselves, even had He not overturned the mountain over them like a barrel. Therefore, when they accepted this commandment upon themselves, thereby they accepted all the commandments. And therefore it is written "kiyemu ve-kibbelu" — "kiyemu" [refers to] the commandments that were given at Sinai, "ve-kibbelu" [refers to] their now accepting the reading of the Megillah. And we have already explained all this in the Introduction; see there. Now, one may ask: here we say that the verse "kiyemu ve-kibbelu" comes to teach that they now confirmed what they had [previously] accepted, yet above we said that the verse comes to teach that "they confirmed above what they had accepted below." And it appears that this is not a difficulty, for certainly we derive both [teachings] from it. For one cannot say that the verse comes [only] to teach that "they confirmed above what they had accepted below," for if so it should have written "kibbelu ve-kiyemu" [accepted and confirmed], since certainly they needed to accept it first, and afterward it would be confirmed from above. But when we expound that "[they] now confirmed what they had already accepted," there is no difficulty with its saying "kiyemu ve-kibbelu" and not saying "kibbelu ve-kiyemu," for the verse speaks of what happened now, and not of what had already happened. And [the verse] does not come for this alone — that they now confirmed what they had already accepted — for if so it should have written "kiyemu kibbelu" [without a conjunction], and not "kiyemu ve-kibbelu," which implies two [separate] things. Therefore one must say that they confirmed [it] above and accepted [it] below. And furthermore, even if we say that "they now confirmed what they had already accepted," one must also say that the Megillah was confirmed above. For if not so, then when they confirmed the reading of the Megillah now, this confirmation would not be [proof] of the acceptance they had already accepted, since the reading of the Megillah is only rabbinic (de-rabbanan). It would be well if the reading of the Megillah has confirmation from above, and as though this commandment had been given from Sinai — for then, since they now confirmed this commandment, which is also from Hashem, this constitutes an acceptance of all the commandments that were stated through ruach ha-kodesh (divine inspiration), as was explained above in the Introduction; see there. But if the commandment of the reading of the Megillah is only from the words of the Scribes (divrei sofrim), there is no confirmation here of what they had already accepted, for the commandment [of the Megillah] is from the words of the Scribes, and how could the words of the Scribes constitute confirmation of the Torah? This cannot be said. "According to their writing and according to their appointed time" (ke-khtavam ve-khizmanam). Explanation: "ke-khtavam" (according to their writing) — that is, the fourteenth day and the fifteenth day; this is called "ke-khtavam." "Ve-khizmanam" (and according to their appointed time) — this refers to the fact that the people of the villages advance [their observance] to the day of assembly (yom ha-kenisah); this is called "ke-zmanam." And so our Sages of blessed memory expounded (Megillah 2a) [regarding] "bi-zmanehem" (below, verse 31): they instituted many appointed times for them. And according to its plain sense, it would appear that the explanation of "ve-khizmanam" is that if it is a leap year, Purim should be observed in the second Adar. And so "bi-zmanam" implies — like the time that is fitting for Purim, for Purim is fitting to be at the end of the months, and that is the time of Purim, as was explained above. Therefore the second Adar, which is the end of the months, is fitting for Purim, and not the first Adar. But our Sages of blessed memory derived this from elsewhere, and therefore they expounded "ke-zmanam" according to what we have said.

Shall be recalled. With the reading of the Scroll [of Esther]. — Notes: (11) Talmud Yerushalmi Megillah 1:5. And observed. [As days of] feasting and rejoicing and a holiday, to give portions [of food to friends] and gifts [to the poor]. — Notes: (12) Ibid. By every family. Gathers together and feast and drink together; and so they took upon themselves that the days of Purim would not be revoked. — Notes: (13) Midrash Mishlei 9. Their memory. The reading of the Scroll [of Esther]. Should not depart. The Aramaic translation of יִתּם [= will end], for the Targum of עַד תּם is עַד דְּסָף [until it ended]. But it is impossible to say that it [יָסוּף] is derived from the same root as “lest you perish [תִּסָּפֶה]” or from the same root as “I may perish [אֶסָּפֶה] one day,” for if it were so, Scripture should have written לֹּא יִסָּפֶה מִזַּרְעָם. — Notes: (14) There seems to be an error in Rashi’s text because Targum renders לא יסוף as לא ישתיצי. The suggested correct text omits the first two words “תרגום של” [=the Aramaic translation of] from Rashi’s text. (Sifsei Chachomim) (15) Bamidbar 32:13. (16) Bereishis 19:17. (17) I Shmuel 27:1.

"should fail" (yasuf) — meaning it will come to an end, as in "together they shall come to an end" (yachdav yasufu) (Isaiah 66:17); and they belong among the twofold [roots], for you find [them] among those with the elided lamed. Now this passage relates that Israel [first] kept this commandment, and afterward enacted it [in writing]; therefore Mordecai needed Esther to write as well, since she was queen.

"and these days, etc." — After stating Israel's acceptance of these days, it says that these days are remembered through the reading of the Megillah, and are made into [days of] joy and feasting, etc. Further, it is fitting to consider why it calls the fulfillment of the commandments "the making of days." Furthermore, the beginning of the verse is like a narration of what they were doing and confirming in their acceptance, while the end of the verse is like a statement of the future, saying that they shall not pass away, etc. Furthermore, it says "and these days shall not pass away" — for it would have been proper to say "and the joy of these days shall not pass away," but not "and these days," for surely the days do go by and pass. And also, its saying "these" (ha-eleh) is superfluous and not fitting, inasmuch as they are not lying before us [in the present]. And also, [regarding the word] "mitoch" (from the midst of) — it is superfluous and devoid of meaning, and it would not have been proper to say anything but "shall not pass away from the Jews" [without "mitoch"]. And furthermore, it says "and their memory shall not perish from their seed" — which is the same as what was already said [i.e., duplicates the point] — why then is it repeated? Now, according to our approach, let us consider the statement of our Sages, of blessed memory: "All the Prophets and all the Writings will be nullified in the days of our Messiah, except for the Megillah of Esther, as it is said, 'and their memory shall not perish from their seed.'" But is this not to be regarded as strange? Is it conceivable that the holy books should be nullified? And if there is a reason for their nullification, what advantage does this Megillah have over them — for even though it was said through ruach ha-kodesh (the holy spirit), surely prophecy is greater than ruach ha-kodesh, so why should the words of the Prophets be diminished in comparison to it? However, we know from the sages of truth [the Kabbalists] that the days in which a person occupies himself with Torah and mitzvot acquire existence and permanence. This is the meaning of "and the days of Israel drew near to die" (Genesis 47:29) and "and the days of David drew near to die" (1 Kings 2:1) — for the days of the years of the righteous are alive and enduring, and draw near at their passing to glorify and adorn their Maker, as though testifying and declaring the Torah and mitzvot that they fulfilled during them. Let us come to the matter. After it states "they confirmed and accepted" — which came about through their recognizing the greatness of the miracle and the deliverance, as Mordechai elaborated to them in his writing, and how much more so according to what our Sages, of blessed memory, say — that this miracle was greater for the Jews than the exodus from Egypt, for there it was from slavery to freedom, but here it was from death to life — and they said in the Gemara that therefore it would have been fitting to complete the Hallel over it by a kal va-chomer (a fortiori argument), except that the reading of the Megillah is itself its Hallel [praise]. This is what we stated in our commentary on Psalms, regarding the verse that Esther said in the psalm designated for her: "I will declare Your name to my brethren" etc. (Psalms 22:23) — that in her "declaring Your name to my brethren" — that is, the public reading of the Megillah — it is as though [she said] "in the midst of the congregation will I praise You," which is the Hallel. And this is perhaps what is intended here by the statement of ruach ha-kodesh in saying "and these days," etc. — that is, after stating the greatness of the miracle, that therefore they confirmed and accepted it even upon their seed. Now see, a difficulty arises here: why do we not complete the Hallel on the days of Purim? Therefore it says: let not the reading of the Megillah be light in your eyes, for know that these days are "remembered" and "made" into such a great quality of Megillah-reading, that through these days being remembered by means of the reading of the Megillah, the days themselves become such that they acquire existence, permanence, and holiness — like the days when a person occupies himself with Torah. This is [the meaning of] "remembered" and "made," to the extent that we may say of them "these," as though they exist and lie before us and are visible, as it were, pointed to with a finger. And not only that, but "they shall not pass" — meaning that even after the day of Purim has gone by, it does not vanish and pass away, but remains in the quality of holiness that it acquired, to the extent that the quality of holiness does not depart from among the Jews, as though these days were perpetually present — similar to the Sabbaths and the festivals of Hashem. And not only that, but the stature of this Megillah is so great that "their memory shall not perish from their seed" — this is [the meaning of] the statement of our Sages, of blessed memory, that all the books of the Prophets and Writings will be nullified in the days of our Messiah, but this one endures forever, like the Book of the Torah. Now, to arrive at the answer to the difficulty we raised on this, let us recall the statement of our Sages, of blessed memory, in tractate Ta'anit, that there is nothing in the Prophets and Writings that is not hinted at in the Torah — so much so that the son of Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yochanan: Where is the verse "a man's folly perverts his way" etc. (Proverbs 19:3) hinted at [in the Torah]? And he answered him in the name of Rav Hoshaya, his teacher, that it is in the verse "And they said, What is this that God has done to us?" (Genesis 42:28). Behold, everything is hinted at in the Torah, but great wisdom is required to understand the matter from within the Torah — which is why Rabbi Yochanan needed to state it in the name of his teacher. Let us come to the matter: in the days of our Messiah, when the earth will be filled with knowledge, we will understand directly and thoroughly from the Torah everything that is in the Prophets and Writings, and therefore they will be nullified, since we will no longer have need of them. But this Megillah — even though it, too, is hinted at in the Torah, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said: "From where is Haman hinted at in the Torah?" etc., "From where is Esther hinted at in the Torah?" etc., "From where is Mordechai [hinted at]?" etc., as explained by us above — nevertheless will not be nullified. This is because, behold, our Sages, of blessed memory, said that the Sanhedrin at that time had no authority to write the Megillah, except that they found it written in the Torah: "Write this for a memorial in the book" (Exodus 17:14) — the word "in the book" (ba-sefer) is superfluous, but it comes to include the Megillah, which is called a "book" (sefer). Therefore I think this is why our Sages, of blessed memory, saw fit to say that this book will never be nullified — because it is a commandment of the Torah to write it, and therefore, just as the Torah itself is never nullified, so too what it commanded to be written will not be nullified — unlike all the books of the Prophets and Writings, which the Torah did not command to be written. And it is possible that the matter is this: that upon this Megillah depend the world, and Israel who fulfill it, and the Torah, through which they endure, as is known. This is because, behold, if there is no Israel, there is no world — as in the statement of Katia bar Shalom, from the verse "for like the four winds [of heaven have I spread you abroad]" etc. (Zechariah 2:10) — and this is [the meaning of] our Sages, of blessed memory: "In the beginning God created" — for the sake of Israel, who are called "reishit" (the beginning). And likewise, if there is no Torah, there is no Israel and no world, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said: "In the beginning" — for the sake of the Torah, which is called "reishit." And likewise, in the Gemara, regarding the creation of the world it is said, "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" — and our Sages, of blessed memory, said, regarding the extra letter heh [in "ha-shishi," the sixth], that the Holy One, blessed be He, said: everything that I have created is contingent upon the sixth day of Sivan — that if they accept the Torah, it is well, but if not, there is no world. Now, the miracle of the reading of the Megillah was such that Israel, the Torah, and the world would then have been nullified, had Hashem not performed all His wonders — so that had it not been for this miracle, [Israel] would not even have reached the days of our Messiah. If so, then, how could it be said that such a thing would be nullified even at that [future] time, for it is exceedingly greater than what applies to the matters of the Prophets and the rest of the books of the Writings. In addition to this, did not our Sages, of blessed memory, say that in the days of Ahasuerus they [re-]confirmed what they had already accepted at Sinai — so that the Torah itself, which is never nullified, was as though [re-]accepted in the days of Purim — how then could their memory be nullified? And according to the plain sense (peshat), it is possible [to explain] why Mordechai and Esther were so particular about the remembrance of these days of Purim, mentioning them several times — that they should observe both the fourteenth day and the fifteenth day, and did not fix one set day for all places in the manner of the [other] festivals; but rather followed the majority count (rov minyan) in reading it in all the towns on the fourteenth, or followed the majority of construction (rov binyan), so that all would observe it according to the days on which the Jews rested, in the place where Mordechai and Esther were — that is, the fifteenth. But I think they intended it as a hint to what is written in the Torah: "for the hand is upon the throne of Yah" etc. (Exodus 17:16). This is based on what our Sages, of blessed memory, said: that He, may He be blessed, swore that His Name would not be called by its four letters until He avenged Himself upon Amalek. This is [the meaning of]: "for the hand" — that is, the oath — "is upon the throne" — that He, may He be blessed, will be called "Yah," without the joining of the last two letters, until the memory of Amalek is blotted out. Therefore, on the festival day of the [unwalled] towns, the oath is hinted at, which is "yud-dalet" (fourteen), as in the phrase "the hand is upon the throne." And on the festival day of the walled [cities], we hint at the wording of the oath, which is His being called, may He be blessed, "Yah" — which equals fifteen — to hint that this matter was a support for our salvation, and not by our own merit. Now, the commentators have elaborated at length in giving a reason for the distinction of the cities walled [since the days of Joshua bin Nun], to follow the precedent of Shushan; and there is room also for this hint: that in Shushan they were surrounded by a wall of the merit of Mordechai and Esther, for "chomah" (wall) equals fifty-nine, and likewise "bizkhut shel Mordechai ve-Ester" (by the merit of Mordechai and Esther) equals fifty-nine in the mispar katan (reduced count) — for it was by their merit that they were surrounded by a wall. Therefore they observed it on the fifteenth, for the Name "Yah" assisted them there. And therefore they relied upon the days of Joshua bin Nun, for whom this Name had stood, which is why Moses called Hoshea bin Nun "Yehoshua" — [meaning] "Yah yoshiakha" (may Yah save you), etc. — this being the Name "Yah" that had helped them then against Amalek.

And the days are remembered through the reading of the Megillah, and are observed through feasting and joy and the sending of portions (mishloach manot), in every generation.

"And that these days are remembered and observed in every generation, etc." (verse 28). The plain sense of the verse's phrase "in every generation" appears to be needed because one might have thought that only that generation which lived in the days of Haman was obligated to observe [these days], but the generation after it was not. Even though it is written (verse 27) "and upon their seed," one might have thought that this too refers only to "their seed" who were born in the days of Haman, only that they were minors at the time — and even though minors are not subject to the obligation. But a generation that was not in the days of Haman at all would not be obligated; therefore it was necessary to write "in every generation." And it is written "every family and family," to say that even if there was a very prominent family — prominent enough that one might say that because of their standing nothing was done against them [by the decree] — [they too are obligated]. "And every province and province," for one might say that when a city is strong it can save itself, and therefore did not need salvation, and so need not observe the days of Purim. And furthermore, [one might say of a place] that it is far from settled areas, such that people have no way of reaching it — despite all this, the days shall be remembered and observed. So it appears to explain according to the plain sense. But in the Gemara (Megillah 2b-3a) they expounded it differently: "family and family" — even families of Levites while engaged in [Temple] service, nevertheless they are obligated to set aside and suspend the service and hear the Megillah. "And in every province and province" — that there is no distinction between Shushan and the other towns. "And every city and city" — [meaning] that there is a distinction between a city adjoining a walled city within the distance of a mil, whose law is like that of the walled city, and the other towns, whose law is not like that of the walled city. "Remembered and observed" (verse 28). "Remembered" refers to the reading of the Megillah; "and observed" refers to the making of feasting and rejoicing and the sending of portions [mishloach manot]. And the fact that it says "are remembered and are observed" rather than "and these days shall be remembered and shall be observed" [in the future tense] teaches that they are remembered and observed by Hashem Himself, for so it was decreed by Hashem that these days shall be forever — as it says afterward, "shall not cease from their seed."

With all the power [of their position]. The power of the miracle of Achashveirosh, of Haman, of Mordechai and of Esther. — Notes: (18) Maseches Megillah 19a. (19) Each one was instrumental in the miracle. A second time. In the second year they again sent letters that they should celebrate Purim.

"all the acts of power" (et kol tokef) — like "strength" (chozek); and similarly "and if one prevails against him" (ve-im yitqefo ha-echad) (Ecclesiastes 4:12). And behold, she wrote it — she and he together. And the meaning of "the second" [letter] is on account of Mordecai's letter, which he had written first. And the meaning of "words of peace" is so that they should not fear on account of having abandoned the commandment of Purim. And the meaning of "truth" is that they are obligated to keep Purim just as they had accepted upon themselves; and the proof of this is that the verse [states] that it is true, and "the decree of Esther confirmed this matter of Purim" (Esther 9:32) — and behold, it was not [fully] established by Mordecai's hand alone, until Esther also wrote. And the meaning of "[they] confirmed upon themselves and upon their offspring the matters of the fasts" (Esther 9:31) — according to the opinion of many, [this refers] to the fast day of Esther. But those who dispute this said that Scripture is speaking of the three days that they fasted in Nisan, and that all Israel ought to fast likewise, always. But in my opinion, our sages of blessed memory established the fast on the day of the dread. And the meaning of "the matters of the fasts" is a reference to those mentioned in the book of Zechariah, which fall in Tammuz, Av, Tishrei, and Tevet (Zechariah 8:19). And the meaning is that the Jews confirmed upon themselves to rejoice on the days of Purim, just as they had confirmed upon themselves and upon their offspring to fast on the days of their mourning, when the city was breached and the House was burned — for the prophet did not command them to fast, as I shall explain in its place; and we are obligated not to encroach upon the boundary of our predecessors. And the meaning of "and their cry" (Esther 9:31) is to pray and cry out to Hashem on the days of the fast. And the word "these" refers back to "the matters," not to Purim.

"And Esther wrote, etc." — After he recounted the whole account of the hardship that befell them because of the king and Haman, and Hashem saved them, and that is why the stature of the reading of the Megillah became so great that it will never be nullified, as it is said, "and their memory shall not perish from their seed." But would not a person ask: if this had been understood to run from "in that night" onward, or from "there was a Jewish man" onward, so that it should speak of the account of the trouble and the deliverance, and by whose hand the matter came about — namely, that there was a Jewish man whose name was Mordecai, who raised Hadassah, that is, Esther — I would say nothing. But as for what runs from "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus" until "there was a Jewish man," where nothing there pertains to the miracle, what benefit is there in that account? And how much more so does this raise a question as to elevating its worth above all the books of the Prophets and the Writings, which are destined to be nullified, while this account will endure forever. For indeed, what does it give us, and what does it add for us, to know the strength of his kingdom of a hundred twenty-seven provinces, and also the strength of his dominion — that all the officials of the provinces it mentions came before him, as it says, "and the officials of the provinces before him" — and also the strength of his wealth, in that in displaying the riches of the glory of his kingdom and the splendor of his greatness he required a hundred and eighty days, and that he made a feast, etc.; and likewise the strength of his anger — that he grew angry at his wife and had her put to death, though not lawfully; and that he heeded the words of Memuchan, and in the strength of his love for him killed his wife for the sake of his beloved friend — what benefit is there in all these things? To this it responds: know, then, that although Mordecai did not make these things the main substance of the account of the Megillah, and wrote only from "there was a Jewish man" onward, as we wrote regarding the verse "And Mordecai wrote these things" — nevertheless, afterward, "Esther wrote all the acts of power," that is, all the various kinds of strength of the king, which run from "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus" until "there was a Jewish man," for there many kinds of strength are found, as we have mentioned. This is the meaning of the extra word "et" [the direct-object marker] and the extra word "kol" ["all"]. And this Esther did, and Mordecai agreed with her as well. This is why it does not say "And Esther and Mordecai wrote," etc. Also, the verse places Esther before Mordecai, which it does not do in the verse that follows this one, where it places Mordecai first — rather, it is that in this instance she herself was aroused to the matter first, and Mordecai followed her lead. This is the meaning of "And Esther the queen, daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote all the acts of power." And why did she do so? To this it responds: "to confirm this second letter of Purim" — this is what we wrote, that the first letter he wrote was for them to accept upon themselves — that is, upon the people of that generation — as an obligation, to observe these days of Purim; and the second letter was so that they would accept them as an obligation also upon their descendants. And it now says that Esther saw that even with this second letter — even though they accepted it — there would still be an element of weakness in the matter, for that acceptance would not suffice to hold firm for their descendants forever, unless it were written to them with all the acts of power — that is, also from "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus" until "there was a Jewish man." This is the meaning of what is written above, "they confirmed and accepted" — with the vav missing from the word "accepted" — to indicate that there was still some weakness in the acceptance regarding their descendants in some respect, and there was no absolute certainty except regarding that one generation. Therefore, even though the reading (miqra) is in the plural form regarding their accepting it from then on also upon their descendants, it was still possible that in another generation their resolve would weaken, so that the matter would hold true for only one generation — this is hinted at by the fact that the tradition (masorah) is in the singular form. Therefore they took this matter to heart in earnest; therefore, "and she wrote," etc., "all the acts of power," in order to confirm thereby this second letter that Mordecai wrote, which was to accept it as an obligation also upon their descendants. And this is because, behold, even though Mordecai, in writing this, dispelled arguments that might have been in their hearts to make light of the miracle, there still remained additional strong reasons among them. One: perhaps Israel would say, why should we accept this as an obligation also upon our descendants — was the miracle really so great? It was almost within the natural order. For is it not possible that the king had his eye on his purse, and after granting Haman's request, he saw that the adversary was not worth the loss to the king — that he would lose great wealth from all the taxes and tributes of a numerous people — so that after selling them he reconsidered and had mercy on himself, and annulled his decree, and turned his hand against those who sought his harm? Or they might say: was it not the hand of the officials, the officials of the provinces, that stood by us? For it is not unlikely that they derived benefit from the Jews who dwelt among them; therefore they concealed the first letters, and it was not worthwhile for the king to provoke them, lest they rebel against him, and therefore he changed his mind. Or they might say: this is nothing other than that the king was fickle, and the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permitted. Or they might say: he was a king who loved justice, and when he finished acting treacherously through Haman's counsel, he saw that something had been done that was decisively not according to law, and so he reconsidered and set matters right for them. Or they might say a claim greater than all of these: that from the outset there was no cause for fear, for his love for his wife was as mighty as death, and she had already saved us once before. Therefore her own conscience counseled her to write "all the acts of power," in order to destroy and demolish all these arguments. This is because: when Israel sees the strength of his kingdom — a hundred twenty-seven provinces — and that all the officials of the provinces were before him, so that they should see that he ruled with great dominion, and that all the officials of the provinces came to his gates to show that they were submissive to his command and subjugated to him, and that he made them a great banquet to bind their affection to him — then Israel will not say that it was out of fear of the king, lest the officials rebel against him, that he reversed Haman's decree. And likewise, when they see the strength of his wealth — that in displaying the riches of the glory of his kingdom and the splendor of his greatness he required a hundred eighty days — they will not say that in order not to lose taxes and tributes he reconsidered and made things right for them; for indeed such a man does not value silver, and has no desire for gold. And also, in their own understanding, they will see it written there — the sin of the feast, in which all the people present, who were Israel, participated, as our Sages of blessed memory said — and thereby the miracle of the deliverance will grow greater in their eyes. And also, when they see that concerning his wife whom he loved he decreed death upon her, and did not turn back from his resolve — they will not say that he was a fickle king; for one who did not spare compassion to reverse himself regarding his own wife, how would he reverse himself regarding Israel? And also, when they see that what he decreed concerning Vashti was not according to law — for Memuchan's arguments were not in accordance with the law, as explained above — and yet his anger did not relent from her, to rectify what he had decreed against her — they will not say that it was because he recognized that what was done to the Jews was not according to law that he reversed himself; for they saw the strength of his resolve not to reverse something he had decreed even without justice. And also, when they see the strength of his acting for the sake of his beloved friend — that he killed his wife for the sake of his beloved friend, as our Sages of blessed memory said, that Memuchan is Haman, whom he loved, since he loved Vashti and praised her before all the officials of the provinces, as they, of blessed memory, said — and nevertheless his love for her was set aside in favor of his love for Haman — how then could Israel now say that he killed Haman for the sake of his wife? Would that not be the very opposite of his character? In such a way that, through all Israel in every generation seeing all the acts of power written from "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus," they will hold firm to the fulfillment of the two letters that Mordecai wrote, to confirm the obligation of these days of Purim also upon their descendants; for indeed all the possible arguments to weaken their resolve have been nullified. And in light of those matters, they will respond, saying: "It is upon us to give praise to the Master of all, for had Hashem not saved them with all His wonders, all the seed of Israel would have been wiped out, Heaven forbid, for the king and Haman would not have left even gleanings." And so their resolve will be strengthened in accepting the days of Purim as an obligation upon themselves, upon their descendants, and upon all who join themselves to them, in accordance with the words of the second letter that Mordecai wrote. This is the meaning of "and she wrote," etc., "to confirm," etc. And since the primary argument most likely to be seized upon by Israel to make light of the miracle was their saying that they had a sister in the king's house — this matter touched her very soul, lest she become an instrument for weakening the resolve of Israel to recognize the deeds of Hashem, for He is awesome, and they should thereby sin against Hashem. Therefore she was moved to have all the acts of power written down before Mordecai did, for included in that, this argument too, along with the rest, would truly be removed from their hearts — by stating that, on the contrary, it was the way of King Ahasuerus to kill his wife for the sake of his beloved friend, so how did he now reverse himself? This can only be because the matter was from Hashem of Hosts, who "lops off the bough with terror." And therefore it says "and Esther wrote," etc., and does not say "and they wrote... and Mordecai," etc. Also, it places Esther before Mordecai, because she began it for the reason mentioned, and he agreed with her, as above. And this reason is hinted at in the text's saying "the queen, daughter of Abihail" — which is not said when she is mentioned in the verse that follows. Rather, its intent is to say that the reason she was moved to write before Mordecai is on account of her being queen. That is to say: there was room for Israel to say that, because she was queen, the king acted for her sake and saved her people; and she was concerned lest, through her, a stumbling-block should emerge causing Israel to make light of the miracle — and she was the daughter of Abihail, a righteous man, and from her father's house she had learned to be wary lest a stumbling-block emerge on her account. Or it hints, in saying "daughter of Abihail," that he was righteous — that is to say: how could the daughter of a righteous man have been married to an uncircumcised one, if not so that good should come to you through the matter? And how could it be reversed, that she should become an instrument for making light of the miracle by claiming it happened in a natural way, thereby being ungrateful to Hashem, Heaven forbid? And therefore, when Israel sees this, on the contrary they will say that even the queen herself lived in dread of death, lest the king kill his wife for the sake of his beloved friend, and they will acknowledge the goodness of their King, may He be blessed. This is the meaning of what it says at the end of the matter, "and the decree of Esther confirmed," etc. — to say: let it not be light in your eyes that she wrote to confirm Mordecai's second letter, even though it had already been said regarding it, "they confirmed and accepted," etc. For know, then, that it is the decree of Esther that essentially confirmed these matters of Purim, for otherwise there would have been weakness in the matter. And therefore, "and it was written in the book" — all the acts of power mentioned, that is, from "Now it came to pass in the days of" until "there was a Jewish man" — for up to this point she had written to make known all the acts of power, in order to strengthen their hearts; and it was still in doubt whether they would fix the matter, "Now it came to pass in the days of," etc., into the wording of the Megillah. And when it was seen that thereby the matter was confirmed in their hearts, then they fixed "Now it came to pass in the days of," etc., into the wording of the Megillah. This is the meaning of "and it was written in the book" — that is, the Megillah, which is called a book. And through this matter we have found and seen a proper reason for the missing vav in the word "ve-qiblu" ["and they accepted"], in the phrase "they confirmed and accepted," etc. — namely, that the acceptance was not yet complete, but there was some element of weakness, until "Esther wrote," etc., through which the decree of Esther essentially confirmed it, as has been said.

The questions: Why did Esther write a second time? And what is "all power" (kol tokef)? And what was the second letter — what did it add the second time over the first? "and she wrote" — What is clarified from this is that Esther wanted this Megillah to remain among the Writings (Ketuvim), and there was a dispute about this among the Sages, for it is forbidden to add to the Holy Scriptures, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said in [tractate] Megillah, that Esther sent to the Sages, "Establish me for the generations," and the Sages did not wish [to do so] at first. And likewise a complaint arose regarding the acceptance of these days as a fixed statute, that they transgress "you shall not add" (bal tosif). And for this reason Esther needed to join together with Mordecai and wrote, with the power of the kingship that was in her hand, to confirm this second letter of Purim — that is, the confirmation of the letter itself. For it was then that she sent the Megillah as it is now in our hands, from "And it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus" until its end, and she wrote to the Sages that they should confirm this letter, so that its law should be like that of the Holy Scriptures.

"And Esther wrote, etc." (verse 29). The letter tav [in va-tikhtov] is large, to indicate that the writing came from above, for the holy spirit rested upon her from above. And the lower world is small, while the world above is great; therefore the tav is large, because this writing was from above. "To confirm this second letter of Purim." According to the plain sense, it appears that he wrote a second time for this reason: even though he had already written to them (above, verses 20-21) to establish Purim, he nevertheless wrote a second time, so that they would be firmly established in [the observance of] Purim. For the first time was when they killed on the thirteenth day in the villages and rested on the fourteenth, while in Shushan they killed even on the fourteenth and rested on the fifteenth — this was the first time (above, verses 17-18). And Mordecai had not yet written anything at all at that time. And after the year of the event itself, Mordecai wrote to them, as stated above (above, verses 20-21). And in the second year he wrote again (verse 29) — so together with the first time there were three times. So one may explain its plain sense. But our Sages of blessed memory explain (Megillah 6b) that "Purim, the second" means the second Adar. This is difficult, for that is not the meaning of the verse at all. And it appears that this is what they meant: the people had already observed Purim in the first Adar, because they did not know that that year was a leap year. And when the year was made a leap year, [Mordecai] wrote to them that they should observe a second Purim in the second Adar — and so the wording is in fact according to its plain meaning. And further, in the Gemara (Megillah 7a): [regarding] "to confirm this Purim, the second," Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: at first they established it only in Shushan alone, and afterward they instituted it throughout the whole world. Therefore it is written "to confirm this Purim, the second," [meaning] to confirm it throughout the whole world, not in Shushan alone. But this is difficult, for it is written just before this (verse 27), "the Jews confirmed and took upon themselves and upon their seed to observe these two days, etc.," and it is not fitting to say that "these two days" applied only to Shushan, for the fourteenth day is observed elsewhere, and the fifteenth day is in Shushan. And it appears one should say that what is written, "Purim, the second," was written after they had established the days of Purim throughout the whole world, and they wrote to confirm the days of Purim a second time. That is to say: just as the second Purim was observed throughout the whole world, so too they should confirm it throughout the whole world. And because in the second Purim they established it throughout the whole world, whereas the first Purim was not throughout the whole world, they therefore wrote that they should confirm "Purim, the second." And even though [the people] had already accepted Purim upon themselves, he wrote yet another time [instructing them] to observe Purim, so that they should not say that the acceptance was not for [all future] generations, but only that they would observe Purim once, on account of the miracle that had been done for them, while observing Purim year after year — no. Therefore they wrote letters to confirm "Purim, the second," which had been established throughout the whole world, so that it would be observed for [all] generations. One may also explain that what is stated just before this (verse 27), "the Jews confirmed and took upon themselves, and upon their seed, to observe the two days, etc.," occurred in the second year, when the whole world took upon itself to observe the days of Purim. And what is written, "and Esther wrote, etc., to confirm Purim, the second," is because a warning is needed at the time of the actual observance. Therefore, when the time of the second Purim arrived, they wrote to confirm the second Purim, and this is a warning issued at the time of the actual observance. So it appears to explain. One may also resolve [a difficulty]: why is it that above it is written (verse 20), "And Mordecai wrote," while here it is written, "And Esther and Mordecai wrote" — why does it not say above, "And Esther wrote"? But the reason for this is that above, the meaning is that Mordecai was [a member] of the Sanhedrin, and it is the Sanhedrin that establishes [decrees], for they are the court [beit din]. Therefore only Mordecai is written there, for he was the head of the Sanhedrin, and a woman does not [sit] in a court — even though the holy spirit rested upon her, a woman does not [sit] in a court. But here, where it was only to reinforce, at the time of the actual observance, that they should uphold what the Sanhedrin had established, for this matter Esther [was included] all the more, since people are more in awe of the queen. So this appears correct.

"And he sent letters, etc." — It is fitting to pay attention to what this involves, for in all the letters sent until now it is not said "words of peace and truth," except in these. Furthermore, why were other letters needed now? Furthermore, why did Mordechai send them alone? Furthermore, it says "as he confirmed upon them" — if this is the wording of the letter itself, it should rightly have said "upon you" and not "upon them." And if the intent is that through the writing of "peace" they would accept the matter — here, in the first letter, they had already accepted it. Furthermore, if these letters were necessary, behold it was Mordechai who sent them, and if so it should properly say "and the decree of Mordechai confirmed," and not "and the decree of Esther confirmed these days of Purim," etc. Furthermore, that it says "as Mordechai confirmed upon them," etc., is superfluous, for who does not know that the matter was established through them? Furthermore, that it says "confirmed upon them" is not exact; rather it should say "commanded upon them" or the like, for the term "confirmation" is exact only regarding one who confirms a thing upon himself, as in the matter of "they confirmed and accepted," etc. Furthermore, if they merely accepted the days of Purim, they did not thereby confirm and accept the matter of the fasts and the outcry — so how can it say, "and as they confirmed upon themselves the matters of the fasts and their outcry"? Rather, the explanation is this: when Mordechai saw what Esther had done, and agreed with her to write the whole matter in full detail, so that the reading of the Megillah would be from "Now it came to pass in the days," in order to show that one should not make light of the miracles and the deliverance because of the objections mentioned — and in particular because of the claim that at first there was no danger, for even the king did nothing against her, only because he did not yet know that his bride, whom he loved, was Jewish; but there was no doubt that eventually, when the time of reckoning came, he would surely be told that she was Jewish, and his heart would turn to destroy, etc., all who sought the death of her people and her kindred — therefore, to remove this from their minds, she wrote the whole matter in full force, from "Now it came to pass in the days" until "a certain Jewish man," so that from this they would see that, on the contrary, she too had been in danger, lest he do to her as he had done to Vashti, whom he had killed for the sake of his friend Memuchan — who is Haman — and therefore they would pay no heed to that claim. Now, when Mordechai saw this matter, he said to himself: who knows whether Israel would accept this argument, that she too had been in danger lest he kill her for the sake of his friend Haman, as he did to Vashti? For is it not possible that they would say the opposite — that, on the contrary, they would say that now he would surely not again kill this wife of his for the sake of his friend, but rather that the king would say, as our Sages of blessed memory said he said: "Behold, this wicked Haman pursues women, for so he did to Vashti, until he had her killed, and also, 'will he even conquer,'" etc. And our Sages of blessed memory said that this is the meaning of "and the king's wrath subsided" — that the king's wrath, which had arisen because Vashti had been killed through Haman, subsided when he had him hanged. Therefore, what did Mordechai do? He sent letters on that assumption, that they might think the queen had never been in danger at all, but rather, on the contrary, it had been very close that her whole people would be saved along with her; and likewise they might think of Mordechai, that he had already been great in the king's gate — especially since from then the king had shown him all that honor, clothing him in royal garments and having him ride through the city square, proclaiming before him, "so shall be done to the man," etc., and hanging his enemy on the gallows, and giving him the house of Haman — from the month of Nisan; for there is no doubt that from then he was no longer in danger, whereas Israel remained so until the month of Adar. So that afterward, according to this reasoning — that Israel might think that Mordechai and Esther themselves were not under the fear of death from Haman's decree — Mordechai wished to prove that even from this there is a proof for all Israel to accept upon themselves and upon their offspring the obligation of these days of Purim, by a kal va-chomer [an a fortiori inference]: for if Mordechai and Esther the queen, upon whom the fear of death did not rest, nevertheless accepted upon themselves the obligation of these days, how much more so now should all Israel throughout the king's provinces — who had been like sheep for the slaughter, and whom Hashem delivered in these days of Purim, and who then dealt with their enemies — accept this obligation. And this is what it says: "to confirm these days of Purim, as Mordechai the Jew confirmed upon them, and Esther the queen" — meaning that just as Mordechai the Jew confirmed this upon them, even though he was Mordechai the Jew, known to be great to the king, and Esther too, even though she was queen — meaning that they were seemingly secure — nevertheless the obligation was confirmed upon them; how much more so, then, the remnant of Jacob should accept it. And something even greater than this we say: that we do not merely say that you should accept the joy of the days of Purim as Mordechai and Esther accepted it, but that Israel should accept as an obligation the joy of the days of Purim, just as Mordechai and Esther accepted and confirmed upon themselves and upon the offspring of Israel the matters of the fasts, and also their outcry, which they cried out for the sake of Israel — Mordechai in the city square, and Esther in prayer, as stated in the words of the Midrash, and in the Gemara, on the verse "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" This is an extremely powerful kal va-chomer: if Mordechai and Esther confirmed fasts and outcries for the sake of Israel, is it not certainly the case that Israel should accept, regarding their own distress, at least the obligations of remembrance and rejoicing over their salvation? And this is the meaning of "and as they confirmed upon themselves," etc. — namely, "and as Mordechai and Esther confirmed," etc., "and upon the offspring of Israel, the matters of the fasts" — for Esther too said, "I and my maidens will fast likewise," and also "their outcry," which they cried out on behalf of Israel. Now, in the words of these letters there are two aspects. One is that it states that even granting that Mordechai and Esther were secure from Haman's evil, nevertheless from this there is proof that Israel is obligated to accept the days of Purim as a duty. The second is the proof it brings, that after both of them accepted upon themselves the days of Purim, and also the fasts and their outcry, then by a kal va-chomer it is incumbent upon Israel to accept the obligation of the days of Purim. Now, the first matter — that both of them were secure — these are "words of peace," to be accepted according to what might be their own reasoning; but they are not "words of truth," for behold, they were not really secure, for it is Mordechai himself who says, "and you and your father's house will perish" — meaning that she, and he (Mordechai), who was of her father's house, were in danger; but he spoke to them according to their own reasoning. But what it said, that both of them confirmed the days of Purim and the fasts and their outcry, these are "words of truth," for this was publicly known, and he brings a proof from what was publicly known to the distant places. And this is why it prefaced and said "words of peace and truth" — regarding the two aspects, as discussed. And the verse says, "the decree of Esther confirmed," etc. — to say that Mordechai wished to act with cleverness/strategy, lest they not believe the word of Esther when she wrote the whole matter in full force to show that she too had been in danger, so that the miracle would not seem diminished in their eyes on account of their having a kinswoman in the king's house — for it is on that very account that they are obligated to observe the days of Purim. And therefore he also sent letters to say that even granting that neither of them had been in danger at all, it is still an obligation upon them to accept it by a kal va-chomer. Now it says that it is the decree of Esther that confirmed these days of Purim, not the letters that Mordechai sent, for they now believed her word, and it was written into the text of the Megillah, from "Now it came to pass in the days," which is the account of Esther, as discussed.

The questions: What is [the meaning of] "words of peace and truth"? "and he sent letters... words of peace and truth" — Since there was a dispute about this, she wrote words to make peace among the Sages and to seek the truth according to the halachah, that her words were correct.

"Words of peace and truth" (verse 30). Its meaning is: "words of peace" — that they [Mordechai and Esther] were requesting of them, by way of request, that they do this; and every request is a way of peace, since one does not decree upon them by force, for discord could result from that; rather, it was by way of request. "And truth" — meaning, that it is fitting according to truth that they establish the days of Purim, "as Mordechai and Esther had enjoined upon them" (below, verse 31). Even though Mordechai and Esther could have decreed upon them by force to do this, nevertheless they did not do so, but only wrote to them by way of request that they should do this. "And truth" — for so it is the truth. And thus they wrote to them: we request of you to fulfill the words of Purim. And if you do not fulfill our words, it is as though you do not wish to listen to us, and this would not be "peace and truth," for according to the truth one must accept the days of Purim, since it is fitting, given that the miracle was done for Israel. And our Sages, of blessed memory (Megillah 16b) — it appears that they explain that this refers to the scroll itself, which is peace and truth. And this is its meaning: that they wrote to them to accept upon themselves what is written in the scroll, namely the affair of Haman, in that Hashem, may He be blessed, made peace for them from the adversary. And this peace is a peace of truth, for so it is fitting — for had He not made peace for them, Israel would, Heaven forbid, have perished, and that would depart entirely from truth; and therefore it is called "peace and truth." And so they said in the Midrash as well (Esther Rabbah 6:2): Moses taught Torah to Israel, as it is said (Deuteronomy 4:5), "Behold, I have taught you, etc." Mordechai too taught Torah to Israel, for it is written, "words of peace and truth," and it is written (Proverbs 23:23), "and buy truth, and do not sell it." [Thus far the Midrash.] And from here they derived (Megillah 16b) that the scroll requires ruling (sirtut) just like an authentic Torah scroll. And this implies that the Torah alone requires ruling, and not the Prophets and Writings. And even though we say in Tractate Gittin (6b) that two [lines] may be written without ruling, [but] three may not be written [without ruling], the Tosafot explained there (ad loc.) that this means that one must rule a single line at the top, and not every single line. And according to this it is difficult: why should this stringency apply to the scroll, that it requires ruling, while the Prophets and Writings do not require ruling? And it appears that there is a reason for the matter, that the scroll requires ruling, and this is because the ruling indicates the complete straightness (yosher) present in the book that one writes — since he writes it with ruling, this is the straightness. And this is fitting specifically for the Torah, for the Torah is complete straightness, and does not depart from straightness. Therefore the Prophets, in whom it is mentioned that Hashem, may He be blessed, does good and kindness to Israel beyond the letter of the law — and if so, this matter, being kindness, is not from the side of straightness, since it is kindness alone. Therefore the Prophets, because they contain the deeds of Hashem, may He be blessed, who does kindness with sinners, prolonging time for them so that they may return in repentance, and likewise other matters that Hashem, may He be blessed, conducts with His creatures, in that Hashem, may He be blessed, enters with His creatures beyond the letter of the law — therefore do not require ruling. But the scroll, in which Haman wanted to destroy Israel entirely — and certainly, Heaven forbid, Hashem, may He be blessed, would not allow them to be destroyed, since they possess the Torah upon which the world stands — therefore the downfall of Haman is complete straightness. And therefore this scroll requires ruling more than the tefillin. And for this reason they said that the ten sons of Haman must be stretched out like an even, straight line, as they said in the Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 3:7), that they must be written shanitz ve-nachitz [in a stretched, staggered arrangement], like this kind of pamphlet. And all this is because their hanging was in equal measure — that is complete straightness. And the one who says that the mezuzah requires ruling (Menachot 32b) — this is because the mezuzah too is for protection, that one not be harmed; and as they, of blessed memory, said explicitly (Menachot 33b): a king of flesh and blood is within [the house], and his servants guard him from without; but as for the Holy One, blessed be He, His servants are within, and the King of kings of kings guards them from without, etc. Behold, you see that the mezuzah is for protection, and all protection that one not be harmed is certainly from the side of straightness. And this matter is like the deed of Haman, where they [Israel] were not asking for any good at all, only that they not be destroyed by the enemy. Therefore the mezuzah requires ruling all the more. And one may also say that the mezuzah is nothing but Torah, for there are written in it passages from the Torah, and therefore the mezuzah requires ruling. But the tefillin — even though the tefillin also contain the Torah passages — are not comparable, for the tefillin require the fashioning of four compartments, and they are called "totafot" (frontlets), and require straps (Menachot 35a), and the [placement of the] yud of the tefillin is a law given to Moses at Sinai (Shabbat 62a); therefore the name "Torah" is not applied to the tefillin. Only the mezuzah, in which there are only the two passages that are from the Torah, therefore the law of Torah applies to it, and it requires ruling like the Torah. And therefore the scroll is called "peace and truth," for this scroll [tells] that Hashem, may He be blessed, made peace for them from the adversary who oppressed them, and this is a peace that contains truth, as we have said. And therefore they, of blessed memory, also derived (Megillah 16b) that it requires ruling "like the authenticity of the Torah." For the Torah is complete straightness, and this is what is meant by "like the authenticity of the Torah." For there is no truth greater than the Torah, for all its words are truth and straightness. And therefore the Torah requires ruling, because it is complete truth, and the entire matter of the Torah is that it contains straightness. Therefore they, of blessed memory, said (Berakhot 33b): one who says [in prayer], "Your mercy reaches even to the bird's nest," is silenced, because he makes the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, into mercy, when they are only the attribute of justice. And he meant to say, as we have said, that the commandments of the Torah are not mercy and kindness. And therefore, one who says that Hashem, may He be blessed, had mercy on the bird's nest, and therefore commanded in the Torah [the law] of sending away [the mother bird from] the nest, is silenced. For the Torah operates by the attribute of straightness, and this is indicated by the ruling, which proceeds in a straight line; and therefore this scroll requires ruling. And furthermore, you should know that the ruling is a straight line, and the straight line proceeds without end. For such is straightness, that straightness has no boundary at all. And this matter we have explained in several places, that the straight has no terminus or end. And because He, may He be blessed, is straightness itself, therefore straightness has no terminus and no limit. And therefore the Torah, which has no end, requires ruling, which is a straight line — and this matter is clear. And because the miracle that Hashem, may He be blessed, performed in this scroll is the victory over Haman, as we have said, this matter too has no terminus or end. As we have also explained above, that concerning this it was said (Yalkut Shimoni, Proverbs, remez 944) that if all the festivals are nullified, the days of Purim will not be nullified. And therefore this scroll also requires ruling like the authenticity of the Torah. And these are the two things we have said, that the scroll requires ruling like the authenticity of the Torah: we explained, on the one hand, that this scroll contains complete straightness, as has been explained, and this conduct was not from the side of kindness and mercy, but only from the side of complete straightness. And we further explained that the reason it requires ruling is because it has no terminus or end, as we said above. And these two reasons are one matter, and one depends on the other: for the thing that is straightness has no end, as we said, that He, may He be blessed, is complete straightness, and the thing that is straight joins itself to Hashem, may He be blessed, who is straightness itself, and therefore it has existence forever. And because of this the ruling, which proceeds in a straight line, indicates that the Torah is eternal. And for this reason they, of blessed memory, said (Ta'anit 5b): Jacob our father did not die, because the attribute of straightness was in him, and because of this Jacob is called "Yeshurun" (Isaiah 44:2), and because of this there is no death — which is cessation and loss — for him, as we have explained this in its place. The general principle of the matter is: straightness has no cessation. And because of this they said that this scroll requires ruling like the authenticity of the Torah. And this indicates the deed of Haman whom they felled — and that is complete straightness, to save Israel from Haman of the seed of Amalek, who is the opposite of straightness, who is the crooked one. And because of this he is all the more prone to have destruction and loss, since he departs from straightness entirely, and therefore complete destruction is fitting for him. And therefore they said (Yalkut Shimoni, Proverbs, remez 944) that if all the festivals are nullified, the days of Purim will not be nullified. And even though we explained a different explanation for this in the introduction, nonetheless this matter too is a clear truth: that the thing which is straightness has no nullification or cessation, and the deed of the scroll fittingly contains the complete straightness needed to nullify the crooked seed of Amalek. And the wise and understanding person will understand that all the explanations we have stated are clear and true, and we shall explain further shortly. And in the Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 1:5): Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish [disagreed] — one of them, Rabbi Yochanan, said, the Prophets and the Writings are destined to be nullified, but the Five Books of the Torah are not destined to be nullified. What is the reason? (Deuteronomy 5:19), "a great voice, and it did not continue." And Reish Lakish said, even the Scroll of Esther and the halachot are not destined to be nullified, as it is said (verse 28), "and their memory shall not cease from their descendants." And [as for] the halachot, as it is written (Habakkuk 3:6), "the ways of the world are His." Thus far [the Yerushalmi]. Behold, now the things we have said are explained before you: that the Prophets and the Writings, even though all the matters contained in them are complete truth, nonetheless the essential character of the Prophets and Writings is that Hashem, may He be blessed, conducts His world through the attribute of kindness, and from the side of kindness there is a terminus and an end. Only straightness has no cessation — like the Five Books of the Torah, in which all the commandments contain straightness, as we said above. The general principle of the matter is that the Torah is from the side of the Cause, which is Hashem, may He be blessed, who ordered the Torah thus, and this matter has no nullification whatsoever. But the Prophets — even though they are from Hashem, may He be blessed — nonetheless are from Hashem, may He be blessed, only insofar as is fitting from the side of the caused, which is man; and according to man's deeds, concerning this the Prophets came to rebuke them. Only the Torah is the order from Hashem, may He be blessed, and therefore the Five Books of the Torah are not destined to be nullified. And do not err by saying that when they said that the Prophets and Writings are destined to be nullified, they meant that they will not be studied, and that they will become, Heaven forbid, like other ordinary matters. For certainly they are holy; rather, it is that conduct [regime] which will be nullified. And Reish Lakish added: even the Scroll of Esther and the halachot are not destined to be nullified. And this matter attests to this explanation, that the thing which is halacha does not deviate from the attribute of straightness at all, but rather is complete straightness — not like a thing that is not halacha, which is not complete straightness, and is therefore not halacha. And this is what they said (Niddah 73a): who is a child of the World to Come? One who studies halachot, as it is said (Habakkuk 3:6), "halikhot olam lo" [the ways of the world are His] — do not read it "halikhot olam lo" but rather "halachot olam lo" [halachot are His forever]. And this matter is the reason we stated, that because halacha is the straightness that does not deviate from the point of truth, but is complete straightness, therefore this matter has no cessation. And this is hinted at in the word "halacha," for the one who walks [holech] walks in straightness to the place where he wishes to go. And this matter has been explained in several places, that straightness, which is the level, has no cessation. And therefore halachot too are not destined to be nullified. And this too, that they said in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Proverbs, remez 944), that Yom Kippur is not destined to be nullified — this matter too has the same reason. For the sinner is one who departs from straightness entirely, for this is the nature of sin, that it departs from straightness. And this day, Yom Kippur, is straightness itself, and therefore it contains atonement for sin for the one who departed from straightness. And this matter is known to the discerning. But if we explain that the Prophets too require ruling, because they contain truth, then it only comes to say (Megillah 16b) that even the scroll, which is not from the Prophets, requires ruling. And therefore they said in Tractate Gittin (6b) that three [lines] may not be written [without ruling] — meaning that everything requires ruling, and there is no distinction between the beginning and the middle, but rather that ruling is required throughout — according to this, there is no difficulty here at all.

The questions: What is [the meaning of] "the matters of the fastings and their cry" — it is not known what these fasts are; and in particular, was it not already stated that "they ordained and took upon them" — so what further need was there for this urging? "to confirm" — And against those who complained about the days of Purim, that one cannot add a festival on one's own initiative and establish it as an eternal statute upon Israel, she replied that one does not transgress "you shall not add" except if one accepts it as a matter of Torah law, wishing to equate it in all its particulars with a law of the Torah — not if one accepts it as a matter of a vow (neder) and the like (as Rambam wrote in the Laws of Rebels [Hilchot Mamrim]). Therefore she said that they should not accept them as a matter of Torah law, but only as Mordecai and Esther had confirmed upon them, as a matter of a vow, and nothing else. And they brought proof for this from the fact that Israel first ordained and accepted the four fasts, which are from the words of the Prophets (divrei kabbalah), as it is written, "the fast of the fourth [month], and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the tenth" (Zechariah 8:19) — and is this not also an addition to the words of the Torah? Yet all Israel accepted them upon themselves. It is thus clear that there is license to add such decrees as a matter of a vow alone.

"and as they had ordained for themselves and for their seed, the matters of the fastings and their cry" (verse 31) — A matter like this is certainly a commandment, to publicize that Hashem heard their cry. And there is no fulfillment of this matter — that the matters of the fastings and their cry be remembered — except through the days of Purim. Therefore, just as they confirmed "the matters of the fastings and their cry" through the days of Purim, so too they confirmed for themselves the other matters — the feasting, the joy, and the rest [from their enemies] — even though they were in exile; nevertheless they confirmed for themselves the days of Purim.

On the basis of Esther’s request [these Purim matters] were perpetuated, etc. Esther requested of the Sages of the generation to commemorate her and to write this book with the rest of the Scriptures, and that is the meaning of “and inscribed in the book.” — Notes: (20) Maseches Megillah 7a.

"and it was written in the book" — [the fact that] the bet is vocalized with a patach [indicating the definite article, "the book"] refers to the [particular] book that was known in their time, and that book has been lost — just as we do not find [today] the Midrash of Iddo, the Books of Solomon, the Books of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, the Book of the Wars of Hashem, and the Book of Yashar (the Upright).

The Questions: What is [the meaning of] "and the word of Esther confirmed," which is unexplained? "And the word" — according to these words of Esther and her arguments that she wrote to the sages of that generation, "these matters of Purim were confirmed"; they agreed with her to establish Purim and make it an eternal statute. And this is a second point: "and it was written in the book" — that they agreed it should be written in a book, and this Megillah would be included among the Holy Writings, for concerning this there was, at first, a dispute among the sages, and now it was confirmed and they agreed with the words of Esther.

"and the commandment of Esther confirmed, etc." (verse 32) — Why does it say "the commandment of Esther," and not "the commandment of Mordecai"? Because Esther was queen, and since she was queen, they listened to her and accepted her words. Even though the Sages of the generation had decreed [these matters], and [the people] were obligated to accept their decree, nevertheless it was possible that they would not listen. Therefore it says "the commandment of Esther confirmed." But Mordecai wrote to confirm (above, verses 20-21) that they should accept this decree. And so they said in the Gemara (Megillah 16b): "'And the commandment of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim' — 'the commandment of Esther' yes, 'the matters of the fastings and their cry' no." Rabbi Yitzchak bar Ami said: "'The matters of the fastings and their cry' [together with] 'the commandment of Esther confirmed' [equal] 'the matters of Purim.'" End of citation. And the explanation of this is: [if] "the commandment of Esther" meant her words alone — that she said they should confirm the matters of Purim because Hashem had saved them from Haman, and they confirmed the matters of Purim — this matter is certainly not so at all. Therefore its explanation is: "the matters of the fastings and their cry" confirmed "the matters of Purim." Nevertheless, had it not been for the commandment of Esther, they would not have listened. Therefore Mordecai is not mentioned here, because what it says — "the matters of the fastings and their cry confirmed" — are the words of Mordecai, who was of the seventy of the Sanhedrin, and they decreed to confirm the matters of the fastings and their cry through the days of Purim, as has been explained. "And the commandment of Esther," which she wrote to them, that they should confirm the days of Purim (above, verse 29) — these two together confirmed the days of Purim. And let it not trouble you that since it is written here (verse 31) "the matters of the fastings and their cry," implying that the matters of the fastings and their cry are the main point of this event, and it would have been fitting for the fast to be the main thing — nevertheless you should know that Purim falls in the month of Adar, which is the last month. And Haman thought that the last month indicates the end of Israel, since the lot fell on the last month, which is Adar. But this matter turned out to be the opposite: for the end of Israel is that they reach Hashem, for He, may He be blessed, is their ultimate end, as has been explained at length above on the verse (3:7) "he cast the pur, that is, the lot" — see there. Therefore on Purim, on the contrary, one must become intoxicated until one does not know the difference between "cursed be Haman" and "blessed be Mordecai" (Megillah 7b). And when a person is in this state, he himself is in a completeness that is not lacking, and when he is like this, this itself is the end — since he is already in completeness, and then his end and purpose is handed over to Hashem. And it is from this aspect that Haman was vanquished, as has been explained on the verse (above, 3:7) "he cast the pur, that is, the lot." And this is the essential reason for what is said (Megillah 7b), that one must become intoxicated on Purim until one does not know the difference between "cursed be Haman" and "blessed be Mordecai." Therefore this day is not like Yom Kippur, which is a day of fasting and affliction. For Yom Kippur is fitting to be a day of fasting, because when a person removes the body from himself through the fast, which diminishes the body, the person has attachment (deveikut) to Hashem. Therefore the fast, which is the removal of the body, is fitting specifically on Yom Kippur. But the days of Purim are a different matter, for Hashem saved them from Haman so that a person should [see that he] is not considered anything, and has no helper of his own; and since a person is not considered anything, his survival is from Hashem. And this — that a person is not considered anything — this matter is on the side of the body. Therefore one must become intoxicated on Purim, and when he is intoxicated and does not know the difference between "cursed be Haman" and "blessed be Mordecai," then what is a person considered, when the intellect is removed from him? And since he is not considered anything, therefore from this aspect Hashem sustains and upholds him. Therefore, in the days of Haman, who wanted to destroy Israel and annihilate their bodies, and they had no help except from Hashem — who sustains a person by virtue of his not being considered anything on his own, but rather that his survival is from Hashem's side — therefore "one is obligated to become intoxicated on Purim until one does not know the difference between 'cursed be Haman' and 'blessed be Mordecai,'" and then there is nothing to the person, and since the person is not considered anything, his survival is from Hashem. And now it has been explained that the days of Purim have feasting and joy, for whoever has more feasting and joy is not considered anything at all. And this is not comparable to a Yom Tov [festival], which is a time of joy, for that joy is only so that there be strength for the soul, not to nullify the intellect from it. But on Purim, all the eating and drinking is the removal of the intellect, and this is the nullification of the person until he is considered nothing at all. And this is enough for those who understand, for these are matters that are very, very deep.