Select Page

Posted on Apr 11, 20 by taryag613

  • In Torah Nation (pg. 40-1), R’ Avigdor Miller explains that the verse uses the word, tokef (authority”), because Esther used her authority as queen to make sure the Jews knew the seriousness of their accepting her words.
  • Rashi seems to translate the word as “power,” and explains that the verse is hinting to the power of the Purim miracle’s effect on the principle players of the story, Achashverosh, Mordechai, Haman, and Esther.
  • The Ben Ish Chai suggests that the events in which the different characters rose to power are the reasons for the different opinions in the Talmud’s (Megilla 19a) theoretical discussion regarding the point in Megillas Esther from which one is required to read during the public reading on Purim.
  • M’nos HaLevi writes that Esther needed to reinforce the establishment of Purim with her authority because it may become difficult in future generations to keep the holiday, but it must nevertheless be celebrated.
  • The Midrash (Rus Rabba 2:4) notes that Jews outside of Shushan reacted negatively to the first document, so this second letter needed to be stamped with authority.
  • Malbim, focusing on the fact that the verse says, “kol tofek,” or “all the authority,” explains that the letter needed two different kinds of authority; the throne’s to be published, and Mordechai’s to make it part of the TaNaCh canon.
  • Rav Schwab adds that Esther is called a queen here to give legitimacy to Daryavesh, her descendant.
  • In response to the rabbis’ question in the Talmud (Megilla 7a) about why Megillas Esther needs to be read like a Torah scroll, Esther convinces them that it is much like the Torah in that both are concerned with the war against Amalek. This furthers her argument that Megillas Esther belongs in TaNaCh, since it is written with ruach hakodesh.
  • R’ Elisha Gallico writes that Esther wanted Megillas Esther in TaNaCh because she was married to a gentile, and wanted future generations to know what led to such an unfortunate situation.
  • In Keemu v’Keeblu, Rav Brevda likewise writes that this was the reason it was in Persian’s royal chronicles. Ancient chronicles were often not objective, so the very presence of this story in the royal chronicle was proof that the king approves. Then, rightfully, if we were to be derided for celebrating this holiday, we could respond that “we Jews celebrate because the king celebrates.”

Posted in Ethics, Government, Halacha, History, Language, Psychology | Tagged achashverosh, amalek, authority, avigdor miller, ben ish chai, daryavesh, elisha gallico, esther, gentile, haman, intermarriage, m'nos halevi, malbim, megilla 19a, megilla 7a, midrash, mordechai, persian royal chronicles, public reading, purim, purim miracle, queen, rashi, rav brevda, rav schwab, ruach hakodesh, rus rabba 2:4, talmud, TaNaCh, torah nation | Leave a comment

Posted on Mar 9, 20 by taryag613

  • The Talmud (Megilla 7a) uses this verse as a proof that Megillas Esther was written with Ruach haKodesh since Mordechai and Esther would have no other way to know that the holiday of Purim would never cease.
  • However, Midrash Shmuel explains that this verse is a prayer that Purim not be forgotten.
  • The Ginzei HaMelech writes that the holiday is forever because of Purim’s being the Jews’ re-acceptance of the Torah.
  • The Kedushas Levi writes that the holiday will never be nullified because Haman was from Amalek, and H-Shem promises “yad al keis ka” (“My Hand is on the throne of H-Shem”) (Shemos 17:16) that He will battle Amalek forever.
  • The Ohel Moshe notes that in the verse (Tehillim 137:5) “im eshkecha yerushalayim, tishkach yimini” (if I forget you, Yerushalayim, forget my right hand), Yerushalayim stands for Purim, and the right hand (yimini) represents Mordechai, who is called “ish yimini.”
  • The Baal Shem Tov writes that every generation will witness miracles.
  • On that note, R’ Avraham Yehoshua Heshel (Aptor Rav) and R’ Baruch of Mezibudzh explain the Talmud’s (Megilla 17a) warning against reading Megillas Esther “by heart” really means not seeing today’s miracles.
  • According to the Talmud (Yerushalmi Megilla 1:5) and the Midrash (Mishlei 9:2), even when other moadim (holidays) will go away in the time of Mashiach, we will still have Purim.
  • The HaSheol U’Mayshiv even explains the requirement to read Megillas Esther in the night of Purim represents Purim’s existence in exile, whereas the requirement to read Megillas Esther in the the daytime of Purim represents Purim continuing into the days of Mashiach.
  • According to Ohel Moshe, this also explains the difference between Jews and their seed mentioned in this verse. After all, are they not the same people? Rather, Jews keep Purim now, and their seed will do so in time of Mashiach.
  • On the other hand, R’ Chaim of Volozhin explains that Mashiach will come when all of the moadim (times) when he was predicted to come will pass. He will finally come when the same Jew-hate as existed in the time of Purim.
  • The Chafetz Chaim adds that the other holidays will not be literally nullified. Rather, we will give Purim more importance because it is the only time H-Shem saved the Jewish people from total destruction.
  • R’ Hutner explains that two people who are tasked with identifying a certain individual in the night. Giving one a flashlight would be a faster, more efficient method than training the other one’s ears to find the person. Although it is a good life skill, it is not the most effective method for accomplishing the task at hand. Similarly, the holidays provide light in exile in the relatively short-term. Purim, on the other hand, has the ability to train our senses to recognize H-Shem in nature, and that is an eternal possession.
  • The Dubno Maggid suggests that the reason why Purim will never cease is because the days themselves arouse the forces put into them during miracle. He provides an analogy of a king who is walking with two servants. If one were to become desperately thirsty, should the king send the remaining servant on the fastest horse in search of water, or should he order him to dig a well? From the perspective of the immediate, current situation, either option has equal potential. From the perspective of the future, however, whereas the water brought by horse has no future benefit, the dug well can provide water to other thirsty people for generations to come. A person desperate from thirst, upon finding the well, may even praise the king who ordered this well dug, for the act is enduring. By injecting certain periods of time, like Purim, with blessing from which we may benefit, H-Shem has inspired the greatest poet to sing (Tehillim 118:1) that H-Shem’s kindness “endures forever.”

Posted in Ethics, History, Psychology, World Supervision | Tagged "yitzchak hutner", amalek, analogy, aptor rav, avraham yehoshua heshel, baal shem tov, baruch of mezibudzh, chafetz chaim, chaim of volozhin, daytime, duubno maggid, esther, exile, forever, ginxei hamelech, haman, jew hate, kedushas levi, megilla 17a, megilla 7a, megillas esther, midrash, midrash shmuel, miracle, mishlei 9:2, mordechai, moshiach, nature, night, ohel moshe, prayer, purim, re-acceptance, ruach hakodesh, shemos 17:16, talmud, tehillim 118:1, tehillim 137:5, torah, yerushalayim, yerushalmi megilla 1:5 | Leave a comment

Posted on Feb 1, 20 by taryag613

?? ???????? ????????? ???????????? ? ???????? ? ?????–??????? ????? ????–??????????? ???????? ????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ??????–?????? ????????

27. The Yehudim established and accepted on themselves and on their seed and on all who join them, and not to pass over the being of having done these two days as their writing and as their times each and every year.

  • On a simple level, the Maharal writes that the verse mentions establishing before accepting because the Jews established in the year following the Purim story that which they had already accepted in the year of the event.
  • In his commentary on the Torah (Bireishis 6:18), the Ramban explains this phrasing to indicate that the Jews accepted upon themselves and their descendants for perpetuity that which they had already placed upon themselves previously.
  • In a later comment on the Torah (Devorim 27:26), however, the Ramban adds that this verse means that the Jews accepted that Torah and all of her mitzvos are true.
  • The Talmud (Shevuos 39a) quotes the verse in the Torah (Devorim 29:13-14) in which H-Shem establishes a covenant with all of the Jews at that time, and forever. The Talmud then uses the present verse’s phrase of “kimu v’kiblu” (“they established and accepted”) to explain how we could know that future generations of Jews accepted to take on any future, additional mitzvos.
  • The Talmud (Megilla 7a, Makkos 23b) teaches that the Heavenly court established above what was accepted by the Jews below.
    • R’ Shmuel Aharon Rubin explains that this means that Heaven confirmed the earthly ruling – like witnesses – giving it legitimacy.
    • Kol Eliyahu notes that this is the idea behind the Talmud’s (Megilla 7a) proof that Megillas Esther is written with Ruach HaKodesh (see Introduction). Otherwise, how would Mordechai and Esther have known that Heaven accepted the Jews’ pronouncement?
  • The Talmud (Shabbos 88a) tells the story of the Jews’ accepting the Torah at Har Sinai. Once they accepted the Torah with the words (Shemos 24:7) “naaseh v’nishmah” (“we will do and we will listen”), H-Shem lifted a mountain over them, and threatened to drop it over them if they would not accept the Torah. What was the reason for this if they had just done exactly that?
    • Tosfos answers that the Jews accepted the Written Torah with complete enthusiasm, but not the Oral Torah. They re-accepted the Torah in the conclusion of Megillas Esther, when the verse (Esther 9:27) writes “kimu v’kiblu” (“they established accepted”). Many commentators are bothered by the implied coercion in this tactic.
    • Firstly, Rashi (on the Talmud there) notes that the coercion was intended for the Jews to use as defense in the future to lessen any punishment. A Jew thereby always has a ready excuse in the Heavenly court that he never accepted the Torah’s responsibilities willingly.
    • The Sfas Emes notes that the word order parallels “naaseh v’nishmah” (“we will do and we will listen”) (Shemos 24:7). Tosfos explains that, after accepting the Torah, the Jews got scared by the fires around the mountain, and back-paddled, taking back their promise.
    • The Maharal (Tiferes Yisroel 32) argues on Tosfos, saying that the message H-Shem imparted on the Jewish people for the rest of history by holding the mountain over them was that the Torah was not simply a subject that they could accept or not, at their whim – rather, the entire world was only made for the purpose of our serving the Torah, and rejecting it (chas v’Shalom) was not a viable option within the scope of our prerogative. Their re-acceptance in the time of Purim, therefore, was an act of consenting to these terms. The Maharal quotes the Midrash (Tanchuma, Noach 3) that the Jews at Mt. Sinai only accepted the Written Law. This did not include the effort, discipline, study, and observance of the Oral Law. The Maharal continues that coercion was necessary to show the world that accepting the Torah was not just a nice gesture to voluntary accept, but a necessary part of life for the world’s continued existence.
    • However, the Ramban and the Ran learn this passage as H-Shem threatening the Jews that if they do not accept the Torah, they would not receive Eretz Yisroel. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 105a) quotes the prophet (Yechezkiel 20:32) that “what comes to your mind shall definitely not occur; in that which you say, ‘We will be like the nations, like the families of the lands, to serve wood and stone.’” The Talmud explains that – like the other nations of the world – once the Jews were no longer in their land, they felt that they were no longer responsible to keep Torah. They realized the error of this philosophy after the Purim miracle, leading to their re-acceptance of the Torah.
    • The Ritva points out that such is just the weak argument of the heretic. The Talmud’s statement means that even if there was coercion, it was re-accepted on Purim.
    • In the “Drashos” section of Oneg Yom Tov, the author writes that just as a marriage could theoretically be annulled by a precondition, so too one could argue that the Jews accepted the Torah at Sinai under the precondition of receiving the land of Israel. This precondition was annulled by the Jews’ renewed acceptance in Persia.
    • The Torah Temimah and the Rayach Dodayim both point out that the word order of “established and accepted” implies that one should first accept, and only then fulfill the Torah.
    • The Chofetz Chaim writes that the generation of the desert was not reluctant to accept the Torah, but was merely concerned about the difficulties to be endured by future generations of Jews keeping the Torah through their future exiles. They knew that the Torah’s many mitzvos would effectively alienate us from our surrounding neighbors. Purim proves that the Jews can keep the Torah even in the most hostile of environments. As the Sages say, the Torah protects us and rescues us. The Torah is not counterproductive to our survival in exile – quite the opposite; the Torah is our key to continued existence.
    • The Dubno Maggid quotes a Talmudic (Yerushalmi Megilla 1:5) debate between H-Shem and the gentile nations. The nations ask, “why did You not lift mountain over our heads? We would have accepted the Torah, too!” In response, the Dubno Maggid tells a parable about two fathers who come to a doctor with their two sons. Both boys refuse to eat, the first one being sick, and the other who is weaning. The doctor tells the father of the sick boy to keep his son away from food and that will force him to eat on his own when he becomes hungry. The doctor tells the father of the weaning boy to force open the boy’s mouth, and to stuff the most delicious foods into it. When the fathers showed surprise regarding the two different suggestions for seemingly the same ailment, the doctor explained that the sick child’s body is repulsed by food, and he needs to stay away from food that can otherwise cause him harm. The weaning child, however, has never had solid food before, and must be force-feed in order to taste food’s sweetness. Like the sick boy, H-Shem knew that the that the gentiles would not appreciate Torah anyway, so He kept it away from them. Furthermore, similar to a weaning boy, the Jewish people were simply unaccustomed to Torah, and needed to be somewhat forced into accepting it. After experiencing its sweetness, the Jews would naturally choose to continue on the right path.
    • In the view of the Sfas Emes, during the first acceptance, the Jews only accepted the Torah verbally – not in hearts, as is hinted to by our singer (Tehillim 78:36) “they tried to trick Him with their mouths.” The situation was very different in Persia, where their hearts were completely invested. He also notes that, just like first acceptance followed the defeat of Amalek, so too in Persia.
    • R’ Yisroel Simcha Schorr notes that, interestingly, the Mishna’s three day allowance to publicly read Megillas Esther for Purim (Megilla 1:1) parallel the three days of preparation the Jews needed to receive the Torah.
    • Perhaps all of this is why, as R’ Dovid Feinstein writes, anyone who wants to join Jews must first accept Purim.
    • Rav Shach writes in Mach’shavos Mussar that, since Purim is an appropriate time to re-accept the Torah, it should be celebrated with learning – not drunken revelry.
    • R’ Henoch Leibowitz notes that at the acceptance of the Torah at Sinai, since so much time (49 days) passed since miracles in Mitzrayim, it was difficult for person to wake oneself up.
    • On these points, Tefillas Chana says that the Jews accepted the Torah because they realized that everything, even nature, is from H-Shem.
    • R’ Yaakov Kaminetsky explains the significance of this acceptance of Torah. Miracles are, after all, easy to accept as G-dly, but seeing H-Shem’s guiding Hand in nature leaves a far more lasting impression.

Posted in Ethics, Halacha, History, order, Psychology, World Supervision | Tagged "dovid feinstein", "dubno maggid", "oral law", "sfas emes", "torah temimah", "yisroel simcha schorr", amalek, bireishis 6:18, chofetz chaim, coercion, covenant, devorim 27:26, devorim 29:13-14, enthusiasm, eretz yisroel, excuse, fear, forever, gentiles, har sinai, heavenly court, henoch leibowitz, jewish survival, kol eliyahu, learning, maharal, makkos 23b, megilla 1:1, megilla 7a, mishna, mitzvos, nature, oneg yom tov, parable, persia, purim, ramban, ran, rashi, rav shach, rayach dodayim, ritva, ruach hakodesh, sanhedrin 105a, shabbos 88a, shemos 24:7, shevuos 39a, shmuel aharon rubin, talmud, tanchuma noach 3, tefillas chana, tehillim 78:36, tiferes yisroel 32, torah, tosfos, written torah, yaakov kaminetsky, yechezkiel 20:32, yerushalmi megilla 1:5 | Leave a comment

Posted on Oct 5, 19 by taryag613

  • The Vilna Gaon writes that the verse’s account of the Jews “doing what Mordechai wrote” refers to their giving charity and gifts.
  • Malbim explains that those Jews residing in the walled cities did not start to celebrate on their own, but only began when Mordechai’s decree went out.
  • M’nos HaLevi notes again that by writing it down, Mordechai retroactively transformed the Jews’ voluntary actions into the obligatory mitzvos of Purim.
  • R’ Dovid Feinstein adds that although the celebrations of Purim started on the Jews’ initiative, they submitted to the rule (and changes) of the sages.
  • The Dena Pishra writes that, at first, the Jews were upset with Mordechai for not bowing down to Haman (Esther 3:2), but now they recognized the wisdom behind Mordechai’s actions.
  • R’ Dovid Moshe Valle also points out that the Jews realized now that Mordechai had Ruach HaKodesh because he was able to summarize the events they witnessed into this multi-level text we have before us.

Posted in Ethics, Halacha, Mysticism | Tagged bowing, charity, decree, dena pishra, dovid feinstein, dovid moshe valle, haman, m'nos halevi, malbim, mordechai, obligations, purim, ruach hakodesh, sages, tzedaka, vilna gaon, voluntary, walled cities | Leave a comment

Posted on Dec 22, 18 by taryag613

  • The Talmud (Megillah 7a) notes that one of the proofs that Megillas Esther was written with ruach hakodesh (see Introduction) is that no human writer could possibly know that the Jews did not take any spoils.
  • Rashi writes that the Jews had rights to the spoils, but decided to wave those rights, and give the spoils to the king in order to maintain friendly relations with the palace.
  • The Dena Pishra writes that they did not take spoils because they did not want others to think that the Jews’ motivation was financial.
  • In M’aarchei Lev, Rav Moshe Schwab writes that since this was the property of Amalek, it was forbidden to take, as was the case for Shaul (Shmuel 1 15:3). and this is why the Jews refrained from doing so here.
  • In fact, the Binyan Ariel and Nachal Eshkol write that the Jews’ self-control in this incident was a tikun for the sin of Shaul in sparing (Shmuel 1 15:9) Amalek’s property.
  • Interestingly, the M’lo HaOmer and Me’am Loez both note that the initial letters of the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth words of this verse, uvabeeza lo shalchu es (“and from their spoils they did not send”) can be rearranged to spell Shaul.
  • The Sfas Emes writes that the Jews took the spoils, but destroyed them in an effort to not benefit from the property.
  • However, R’ Yitzchak Yeruchem Diskin writes in Ohelim that Jews have an obligation to take the property of Amalek and destroy it, but did not do so here. The reason was that the Talmud (Megillah 16a) considers Haman to have been a slave. As such, he relinquished all rights to personal belongings. This includes his children. This also answers the question of how his grandchildren could study Torah in Bnei Brak if Amalek is never allowed to join the Jewish people. Such is not the case for his grandchildren because of his status of being a slave.
  • Megillas Seris adds another reason they did not take the spoils – they only had one day to kill Amalek, and they did not want to run the risk of missing the opportunity to fulfill this mitzva. In the course of performing a mitzva, they totally ignored anything ancillary to killing out their enemies.
  • The Gerrer Rebbe notes that matanos la’evyonim, the Halachic (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 695:4) injunction to donate to the poor on Purim is in honor of the impoverished Jews of the time not taking the spoils of their enemies, despite their needs.

Posted in Ethics, Halacha, Mysticism, Psychology | Tagged amalek, binyan ariel, bnei brak, charity, dena pishra, gerrer rebbe, haman, introduction, m'aarchei lev, m'lo haomer, matanos la'evyonim, me'am loez, megillah 16a, megillah 7a, megillas seris, mitzva, moshe schwab, motivation, nachal eshkol, ohelim, poor, rashi, ruach hakodesh, self-control, sfas emes, shaul, shmuel 1 15:3, shmuel 1 15:9, shulchan aruch orach chaim 695:4, slave, spoils, talmud, tikun, yitzchak yeruchem diskin | Leave a comment

Posted on Mar 17, 16 by taryag613

  • The Ibn Ezra quotes the opinion in the Talmud (Megillah 15b) of Rebbe Eliezer that the verse’s use of the phrase “in his heart” is proof that Megillas Esther was written with Ruach HaKodesh, Divine Inspiration, (see Introduction). After all, if Haman said something to himself, how did the authors of this book know what he was thinking privately?
  • The Sfas Emes, however, asks why this would prove that the entire book is written with Divine Inspiration. It should only prove that its authors, Esther and Mordechai, had Divine Inspiration. He answers that people with Ruach HaKodesh would not have written that they have it in such an obvious way. They would not show it off.
  • A story is told of the Rubshitzer Rav that somebody came to visit him for a bracha, but arrived at a time at which the Rav did not accept visitors. The visitor told the attending gabbai, who happened to be the Rav’s son, that he was a very important person. After the gabbai persisted in explaining that this was not the time for the Rav to receive visitors, this guest asked for a glass of water. When the gabbai gave him the water, the man said he could not drink from the cup because he could tell that it had not yet be toveled (submerged) in a mikvah since he could feel the Name of H-Shem on it. Indeed, upon investigation, the Rav’s son learned that the cup he had given the man came from a box of vessels awaiting mikvah immersion. Impressed with the man’s obvious holiness, he rushed him in to see his father, the Rubshitzer Rav. After the visit, the Rav asked the gabbai why he allowed the guest at a time when the Rav did not see visitors. His son told him then what had transpired earlier, and concluded, “I pray that one day, I am on the level to see if a cup has been toveled merely by holding it.” The Rav responded, “When you become that great, I pray you are the type of person who will not tell that to the person who gave you the glass.”
  • The Midrash (Esther Rabba 10:3) writes that evil people are controlled by their hearts, and brings several proofs from TaNaCh of this. Righteous people, on the contrary, are in control of their hearts.
  • Rebbetzin Heller explains that righteous people are are rational, and evil people are emotional. The Maharal adds that an evil person’s whole being is focused on the temporary, terrestrial world, whereas the righteous are focused on the permanent, the holy – not controlled by the momentary whims and passions of their hearts.
  • Parenthetically, it is amazing to note that Haman who had arrived with the plan to kill Mordechai, could switch gears without missing a beat, from murder to honoring himself. Perhaps this is because both come from the same negative inclination/characteristic.

Posted in Ethics, Mysticism, Psychology | Tagged "Ibn Ezra", "Megillah 15b", "sfas emes", divine inspiration, esther, esther rabba 10:3, evil people, haman, heart, introduction, maharal, midrash, mordechai, rabbi eliezer, rational, rebbetzin heller, ruach hakodesh, rubshitzer rav, talmud, temporary | Leave a comment

Posted on Feb 9, 15 by taryag613

? ????????? ???????? ???–???–????????? ???? ?????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ???–???????????? ??????–????????? ???

4. And Esther said, “If it is good for the king, the king and Haman should come today to the drinking party that I made for him.”

The Talmud (Megillah 15b) has a total of twelve reasons for Esther to have invited Haman to the feast:

a) R’ Eliezer says she was laying traps for him, as it says in Tehillim (69:23), “their tables will be their own traps.” In other words, Haman’s presence may give him the opportunity to say or do something he shouldn’t, giving the king prerogative to have his head.

b) R’ Yehoshua says Esther learned this from the house of her father1: Mishlei (25:22) teaches, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him bread.” In other words, one method of taking on one’s enemy is by surrendering some non-essential concession to him, thereby ultimately taking control of the situation when the opportunity strikes.

c) R’ Meir says Esther did this so that Haman would not take good advice, and rebel. In other words, Esther was hoping that her invitation’s stroking Haman’s ego would encourage him to rebel.

d) R’ Yehuda says Esther invited Haman so that he would not suspect that she is a Jewess.

e) Similarly, R’ Nechemia says Esther invited Haman in order for the Jews to not become complacent from their prayers and repentance by comforting themselves that they have a “sister” in the palace who can save them from this genocide.

f) R’ Yose says Esther invited Haman so that he would be available to her at all times. In other words, she wanted her “enemies close” to be able to manipulate his behavior to the benefit of her people.

g) R’ Shimon ben Menasya says Esther invited Haman thinking that, perhaps, H-Shem will become “emotional,” either through mercy or anger, and create a miracle to rescue the Jewish people.

h) R’ Yehoshua ben Karcha says Esther invited Haman in order to smile at him, evoking the king’s jealousy, leading him to execute both Haman and Esther. She was thus willing to sacrifice herself for her people.

i) Rabban Gamliel says Esther invited Haman because Achashverosh was fickle, and prone to inconsistent behavior. If the king gets the opportunity to spend more time with Haman, the statistical chances of him changing his positive opinion of him grow exponentially. Furthermore, had Haman not been at the feast when Esther convinced Achashverosh to kill Haman, his fickleness may lead him to change his mind by the time Haman is found.

j) R’ Gamliel says that all of these answers may explain why Esther invited Haman, but we still require the answer of the R’ Eliezer the Moda’ai to explain why Esther invited only Haman, and not the other advisers. He says she intended to make the rest of the court jealous, since Haman was invited to the meal, whereas they were overlooked. Class participant CRL suggested that having the other advisers attend would require the presence of Mordechai, who should have been celebrating the Pesach seder at the time.

k) Rabba says Haman was invited because “pride comes before destruction” (Mishlei 16:18). Like the English expression, the taller they are, the harder they fall, Esther is bating Haman’s ego to help precipitate his destruction. Incidentally, the Rokeach points out that the gematria of the above phrase from Mishlei (zehu lifnei shever ga’on) (7+5+6+30+80+50+10+300+2+200+3+1+6+50=750) is equal to the words from this verse from Esther that Haman was invited to the feast (hamishteh) (5+40+300+400+5= 750).

l) Abayey and Rava both say Esther’s intent can be seen in the verse “in their heat, I prepare their meal” (Yirmiya 51:39). This verse refers to the drunken death of Balshatzar, and Esther hoped this drunken revelry, too, would kill both Haman and Achashverosh. Incidentally, the Rokeach points out that the gematria of the above word for “in their heat” (bichumam) (2+8+6+40+40=96) is equal to Haman (5+40+50=95) with its kollel.

m) When Rabba son of Avuha met with Eliyahu HaNavi, he asked him which of these opinions is correct regarding Esther’s intent. Eliyahu HaNavi answered that they are all correct.

  • Eliyahu’s answer lends support, writes Rav Shwab, to the idea that when the verse says Esther donned royalty (Esther 5:1), it means she gained ruach hakodesh, the Holy Spirit.
  • Rabbeinu Bachya points out that the initial letters of “the king and Haman should come today” (yavo hamelech viHaman hayom) spell out H-Shem’s Name. H-Shem’s Name is not ever explicitly in Megillas Esther.
  • According to Ibn Ezra, this is because this was a public document in Persia, and the Rabbis were concerned that the Persians might supplant their own gods’ names for H-Shem’s if it were there. Another reason is to teach that H-Shem is available in all situations – good and (seemingly) bad.
  • The Ari, in his list (Pri Etz Chaim) of twelve places where H-Shem’s Name is secretly hidden in Megillas Esther, lists this as one of the places.
  • The Ohel Moshe writes that H-Shem’s Name is specifically at this point because the Talmud (Sukkah 14a) writes that when the righteous pray, they overturn H-Shem’s Anger to Mercy.

1Rashi points out that, not actually growing up in her father’s house, Esther must have overheard this teaching from Mordechai’s conversations with his students.

Posted in Ethics, Government, Mysticism, Psychology, Uncategorized | Tagged "Megillah 15b", achashverosh, anger, ari, Balshatzar, complacency, concession, drunkenness, ego, eliyahu hanavi, enemies close, enemy, esther, esther 5:1, feast, fickle, gematria, haman, invitation, jealousy, mercy, miracle, mishlei 16:18, mishlei 25:22, mordechai, ohel moshe, pesach, prayer, pri eitz chaim, rabbeinu bachya, rav shwab, repentance, rokeach, ruach hakodesh, sukkah 14a, talmud, tehillim 69:23, yimiya 51:39 | Leave a comment

Posted on Dec 23, 14 by taryag613

  • Both the Vilna Gaon and Malbim write that the verse mentions so many locations because Esther stood outside his private residence, where Achashverosh was expected to be. H-Shem had arranged it so that Achashverosh was then in court, able to see Esther outside his residence. This way, she was suddenly in the public courtyard, and he felt unable to order her execution. Like the reasons he had to give him pause before having Vashti killed, the king again did not want to appear insecure, especially since this would be the second wife he’d have executed.
  • As the Alshich points out, since Esther was right in front of Achashverosh, nobody would be able to attack her without his say-so.
  • Finally, the Imrei Emes, in a less literal interpretation of the verse, writes that the verse’s description of Esther’s location is a spiritual dimension. This is not a physical courtyard. Rather, the added power of Esther’s accomplished Ruach HaKodesh, her powerful prayer, and her self-sacrifice transported Esther into H-Shem’s Inner Courtyard, where He made Himself more receptive to her plea.

Posted in Geography, Mysticism | Tagged "vilna gaon", achashverosh, alshich, esther, imrei emes, insecurity, locations, malbim, prayer, ruach hakodesh, Vashti | Leave a comment

Posted on Dec 8, 14 by taryag613

??? ?

? ??????? ? ???????? ????????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ?????–????????? ???????????? ????? ????? ????????? ??????????? ??????? ???–??????? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ????? ?????? ????????

Chapter 5

1. And it was in the third day, and Esther dressed in royalty. And she stood in the courtyard of the inner house of the king, facing the house of the king. And the king was sitting on the seat of his royalty in the house of royalty facing the opening of the house.

  • M’nos HaLevi writes that Esther usually avoided wearing royal garb. From her humility and modesty, she did not want to wear any clothing that would demonstrate her accepting her role as queen. The Talmud (Megillah 15a) points out that the verse seems to be missing the word, “clothing.” Accordingly, Esther wore “royalty” not in the physical sense, but in the sense of her enveloping herself in the Holy Spirit – Ruach HaKodesh.
  • Iyun Yaakov wonders why this would occur now. After all, Esther is a prophetess, and one would imagine she was constantly connected to H-Shem’s Messages. He answers that this was a time of great hester Panim, of H-Shem hiding His Face, as it were. In response to the Talmud’s famous attempt to find the story of Esther alluded to in the Torah, the Talmud (Chulin 139b) quotes the verse “v’Anochi hastir astir Panai bayom hahu” (“And I will surely hide My Face from them on that day”) (Devarim 31:18). Since this was a time of great Divine concealment, and there was great doubt in the world, the Jews attempted to change things by fasting for three days, and praying to H-Shem, and managed to merit their prophetess receiving the Divine Presence.
  • The Vilna Gaon adds that there is a concept that the Divine Spirit only rests upon a person whose body is “broken down.” This means someone who wants spiritual growth needs to realize that one’s soul is more important than one’s body.
  • The Midrash (Bireishis Rabbah 56:1) writes that the royalty referred to here is the royalty of Esther’s father’s house, being descendant from King Shaul. Preparing for her disobeying a royal edict to meet the king, she took with her the dignity and air of monarchy she inherited from her ancestry. This idea certainly supports the contention of the Malbim and M’nos HaLevi that Esther’s wearing “royalty” simply meant that she seemed regal to casual observers.
  • R’ Shlomo Kluger in Ma’amar Mordechai, says that Esther had been forced to be the queen, and at this point, she owned up to that responsibility. He points out that, from this verse and onwards, Esther is consistently called Queen Esther by the authors of Megillas Esther.
  • Pachad Yitzchak notes that this verse indicates that Esther became the queen of the Jewish people. Interestingly, the Jews can only fulfill the command to eradicate Amalek when they have a sovereign ruler (Talmud, Sanhedrin 20a), and Esther took on that role to enable this.
  • Rabbi Eliezer Ginzburg asks how she was given authority to be the queen. The Shem M’Shmuel (on Devarim 33:19) writes that the main function of a Jewish king or queen is to unite the Jewish people. Therefore, by enveloping herself in an intense love for the Jews, she took on the role of royalty, becoming what a royal is supposed to be.
  • Rav Ginzburg also quotes the Nefesh HaChaim (3:12) that even if there are other spiritual forces in the world, they will have no affect on a person who totally submits oneself to H-Shem’s sovereignty. There are numerous stories concerning the Rav of Brisk, Rav Yitzchak Soloveitchik, whose concentrating on this idea of “ein od milVado” (“there is nothing beside Him”) from the Nefesh HaChaim at different times rescued him from Russian conscription and Nazi persecution. Accordingly, this is the idea of royalty with which Esther adorned herself, making her impervious to any harm.
  • The Pachad Yitzchak notes that this is a rare example of Jewish royalty wearing non-Jewish garments, and this may be yet another reason for the custom of wearing masks and disguises on Purim.

Posted in Ethics, History, Mysticism, Psychology, World Supervision | Tagged "eliezer ginzburg", "m'nos halevi", "pachad yitzchak", "vilna gaon", amalek, bireishis rabbah 56:1, chulin 139b, clothing, concealment, custom, devarim 31:18, devarim 33:19, divine inspiration, divine presence, edict, fasting, hester panim, holy spirit, humility, iyun yaakov, jewish king, love, ma'amar mordechai, malbim, masks, megillah 15a, midrash, modesty, nazi persecution, nefesh hachaim 3:12, non-jewish garments, prayer, prophecy, purim, queen esther, royalty, ruach hakodesh, russian conscription, sanhedrin 20a, shaul, shem m'shmuel, shlomo kluger, talmud, unity, yitzchak soloveitchik | Leave a comment

Posted on Jan 20, 14 by taryag613

  • According to R’ Eliezer of Worms, the verse use the word “parashas” (“chapter”) to describe Haman’s meeting with Achashverosh in order to emphasize that this event was not just talk – a financial exchange took place, giving the event legal significance and legally binding consequences.
  • In fact, as the Divrei Shaul points out, Mordechai was communicating to Esther the fact that Achashverosh could not be easily bought off, since Haman had already given/ offered him money (see above 3:11).
  • As R’ Dovid Feinstein notes, Achashverosh’s refusal to accept the bribe only stresses the ferocity of his hate for the Jews, making this a very serious threat to Jewish existence, indeed. Convincing Achashverosh to change his mind would require nothing short of a miracle.
  • Parenthetically, According to Yaaros Dvash, the fact that Achashverosh refused the money was covered up by Haman in an attempt to deny people the opportunity to intercede on behalf of the Jews.
  • The Chasam Sofer writes that Mordechai’s giving the details of this entire episode here served a vital purpose later. In fact, Esther uses this event in detail to convince the king to save the Jews from Haman’s decree. In the Chasam Sofer’s view of the events, Achashverosh refused Haman’s money (see 3:11 above) because he reasoned that killing such a people was a worthwhile responsibility of his, and taking payment for this would be unethical. In Achashverosh’s mind, Haman’s offer and and his refusal were secret. Since Mordechai’s knowledge of this came through a Ruach HaKodesh-like dream, Mordechai kept the information under wraps to be used later, if necessary. Once Esther tells Achashverosh that her people had been “sold” (see 7:4 below), Achashverosh begins to suspect that Haman had libelously spread the rumor that he had, indeed, accepted Haman’s payment. Therefore, he responds by asking who would do such a thing (see 7:5 below). It seems improbable that Achashverosh had forgotten the entire incident, so he is asking who would spread such a rumor.
  • The Brisker Rav interprets the word “parasha” as being related to “lihafreesh” (“to set aside”). In his view, Mordechai was informing Esther of the money that was set aside, or designated for the purchase of killing out the Jews. Such money was legally binding, and eventually, Achashverosh’s only way out of the deal would have be to kill the “buyer” – Haman.
  • Alshich uses Rashi’s seemingly simple explanation that “parsha” means explanation to mean that Mordechai related all of the details of Haman’s and Achashverosh’s meeting, including the mystical interpretations for the reasons Haman had to offer 10,000 loaves of silver.
  • Finally, the Sfas Emes translates “parashas” to mean “sum,” emphasizing Haman’s generosity in contributing towards the kingdom. In view of the concept of “zeh l’umas zeh,” the Jews need to be generous with charity in order to counterbalance the generosity of our enemies.

Posted in Ethics, History, Language, Mysticism, Psychology | Tagged "dovid feinstein", "sfas emes", achashverosh, alshich, bribe, brisker rav, chasam sofer, divrei shaul, dream, eliezer of worms, esther, esther 3:11, esther 7:4, esther 7:5, financial exchange, haman, libel, mordechai, rashi, ruach hakodesh, silver, yaaros dvash, yehonason eibshutz, zeh l'umas zeh | Leave a comment

Source

Download your FREE PATCHWORK Wellness Planner to kickstart your wellness physically, mentally and economically today!

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

You have Successfully Subscribed!