Daf Ditty Megillah 13: Esther’s Complexion and Fragrance

The verse states:

1
 ‫ ִהיא ֶאְסֵתּר‬,‫ֲהַדָסּה‬-‫ז ַו ְיִהי ֹאֵמן ֶאת‬
;‫ ָאב ָוֵאם‬,‫ִכּי ֵאין ָלהּ‬--‫ֹדּדוֹ‬-‫ַבּת‬
,‫ ְוטוַֹבת ַמ ְרֶאה‬,‫ֹתַּאר‬-‫ְוַהַנֲּﬠָרה ְיַפת‬
‫ ְלָקָחהּ ָמ ְרֳדַּכי לוֹ‬,‫וְּבמוֹת ָאִביָה ְוִאָמּהּ‬
.‫ְלַבת‬
7 And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle's
daughter; for she had neither father nor mother, and the maiden
was of beautiful form and fair to look on; and when her father
and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own
daughter.
Esther 2:7

“And he had brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther”

She is referred to as “Hadassah” and she is referred to as “Esther.” What was her real name?
It is taught in a baraita that the Sages differed in their opinion as to which was in fact her name
and which one was a description: Rabbi Meir says: Esther was her real name. Why then was
she called Hadassah? On account of the righteous, who are called myrtles [hadassim], and so
it states:

-‫ִאישׁ ֹרֵכב ַﬠל‬-‫ ְוִהֵנּה‬,‫ח ָרִאיִתי ַהַלּ ְיָלה‬
‫ ֵבּין ַהֲהַדִסּים ֲאֶשׁר‬,‫ ְוהוּא ֹעֵמד‬,‫סוּס ָאֹדם‬
‫ ְשֻׂרִקּים‬,‫ַבְּמֻּצָלה; ְוַאֲח ָריו סוִּסים ֲאֻדִמּים‬
.‫וְּלָב ִנים‬
8 I saw in the night, and behold a man riding upon a
red horse, and he stood among the myrtle-trees that
were in the bottom; and behind him there were horses,
red, sorrel, and white.
Zech 1:8

“And he stood among the myrtles [hahadassim]”

Rabbi Yehuda differs and says: Hadassah was her real name. Why then was she called Esther?
Because she concealed [masteret] the truth about herself, as it is stated:

-‫ ַמֶגֶּדת מוַֹלְדָתּהּ ְוֶאת‬,‫כ ֵאין ֶאְסֵתּר‬
-‫ ָמ ְרֳדָּכי; ְוֶאת‬,‫ ַכֲּאֶשׁר ִצָוּה ָﬠֶליָה‬,‫ַﬠָמּהּ‬
‫ ַכֲּאֶשׁר‬,‫ַמֲאַמר ָמ ְרֳדַּכי ֶאְסֵתּר ֹעָשׂה‬
{‫ }ס‬.‫ָה ְיָתה ְבָאְמָנה ִאתּוֹ‬
20 Esther had not yet made known her kindred nor her
people; as Mordecai had charged her; for Esther did the
commandment of Mordecai, like as when she was
brought up with him-- {S}
Esther 2:20

“Esther had not yet made known her kindred nor her people”

2
Rabbi Neḥemya concurs and says: Hadassah was her real name. Why then was she called
Esther? This was her non-Hebrew name, for owing to her beauty the nations of the world called
her after Istahar, Venus. Ben Azzai says: Esther was neither tall nor short, but of average
size like a myrtle tree, and therefore she was called Hadassah, the Hebrew name resembling that
myrtle tree. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: Esther was called Hadassah because she was
greenish, having a pale complexion like a myrtle, but a cord of Divine grace was strung around
her, endowing her with a beautiful appearance.

Jastrow

RASHI

Ben Yehoyada

3
Tikkunei Zohar 134b

Lev 14:37

If, when he examines the plague, the plague in the walls of the house is found to consist of greenish
Or “yellowish.” or reddish streaks Meaning of Heb. sheqa‘aruroth uncertain. that appear to go
deep into the wall,

Ohr HaChayim to Lev 14:37

4
The verse initially states with regard to Esther:

,‫ַהָנִּשׁים‬-‫ֶאְסֵתּר ִמָכּל‬-‫ ֶאת‬r‫יז ַוֶיֱּאַהב ַהֶמֶּל‬ 17 And the king loved Esther above all the women, and she
;‫ַהְבּתוּלוֹת‬-‫ֵחן ָוֶחֶסד ְלָפָניו ִמָכּל‬-‫ַוִתָּשּׂא‬ obtained grace and favour in his sight more than all the
‫ ַוַיְּמִליֶכָה‬,‫ַמְלכוּת ְבּר ֹאָשׁהּ‬-‫ַוָיֶּשׂם ֶכֶּתר‬ virgins; so that he set the royal crown upon her head, and
.‫ַתַּחת ַוְשִׁתּי‬ made her queen instead of Vashti.
Esther 2:7

“For she had neither father nor mother” Why do I need to be told in the continuation of the
verse: “And when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter”?
Rav Aḥa said: This repetition indicates that when her mother became pregnant with her, her
father died, and when she gave birth to her, her mother died, so that she did not have a mother
or a father for even a single day.

The verse states:

‫ ִהיא ֶאְסֵתּר‬,‫ֲהַדָסּה‬-‫ז ַו ְיִהי ֹאֵמן ֶאת‬
;‫ ָאב ָוֵאם‬,‫ִכּי ֵאין ָלהּ‬--‫ֹדּדוֹ‬-‫ַבּת‬
,‫ ְוטוַֹבת ַמ ְרֶאה‬,‫ֹתַּאר‬-‫ְוַהַנֲּﬠָרה ְיַפת‬
‫ ְלָקָחהּ ָמ ְרֳדַּכי לוֹ‬,‫וְּבמוֹת ָאִביָה ְוִאָמּהּ‬
.‫ְלַבת‬
7 And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle's
daughter; for she had neither father nor mother, and the maiden
was of beautiful form and fair to look on; and when her father
and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own
daughter.
Esther 2:7

5
 “And when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter”

A tanna taught a baraita in the name of Rabbi Meir: Do not read the verse literally as for a
daughter [bat], but rather read it as for a home [bayit]. This indicates that Mordecai took Esther
to be his wife. And so it states:

‫ג ִה ְנ ִני ֲﬠנוּ ִבי ֶנֶגד ְיהָוה ְוֶנֶגד‬ 3 Here I am; witness against me before the LORD, and
‫שׁוֹר ִמי ָלַקְחִתּי ַוֲחמוֹר‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫ְמִשׁיחוֹ‬ before His anointed: whose ox have I taken? or whose ass
‫ִמי‬-‫שְׁקִתּי ֶאת‬ ַ ‫ִמי ָﬠ‬-‫ִמי ָלַקְחִתּי ְוֶאת‬ have I taken? or whom have I defrauded? or whom have I
,‫ִמי ָלַקְחִתּי ֹכֶפר‬-‫ וִּמַיּד‬,‫ַרצּוִֹתי‬ oppressed? or of whose hand have I taken a ransom to blind
.‫ ָלֶכם‬,‫ְוַאְﬠִלים ֵﬠיַני בּוֹ; ְוָאִשׁיב‬ mine eyes therewith? and I will restore it you.'
II Sam 12:3

“But the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and reared:
And it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his bread, and drank of his
own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was like a daughter [kevat] to him”

The Gemara questions: Because it lay in his bosom, it “was like a daughter to him”?

Rather, the parable in II Samuel referenced the illicit taking of another’s wife, and the phrase
should be read: Like a home [bayit] to him, i.e., a wife. So too, here, Mordecai took her for a
home, i.e., a wife.

Summary

On Names and Embellishment

We continue to learn the interpretations of our Sages as they study the words of Megillat
Esther. They examine names at the start of amud (a), noting why particular names suited particular
people. When they look at Esther, they note that her full name is Hadassah. This name could
reflect multiple traits.1

It is notable that our Sages add tremendous colour to the narrative of the Megilla. They introduce
full, detailed conversations between Haman and King Achashverosh, for example. Each story is
accepted (or put aside in favour of another story) and it becomes part of the larger narrative.

As a child, I did not learn the Megilla separate from some of these commentaries. For example,

1
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/07/

6
Queen Vashti did not come to her husband to show off her beauty, dressed in her royal crown. I
learned that Queen Vashti was in fact wearing only her crown, and she refused to dance naked for
the King and his guests. This interpretation of nakedness is not in the actual Megilla; it is an
embellishment suggested by our Sages to explain why Vashti did not follow her husband's
rule. Vashti is thus perceived as somehow lude, even though she does not wish to participate in
the King's pride-filled game.

Much of what I have been hoping to learn in these studies is the difference between Torah text and
Gemara. When my education is as limited as it has been, it is too difficult to imagine sorting
through halacha from one law to the next. Instead, delving into Talmud allows me to recognize
what has been taught based on Gemara, on Torah law, and on minhag, or custom. An invaluable
lesson!

Our daf also covers Achashverosh's choice of Esther, her actions upon entering Achashverosh's
community, the notion of G-d noticing people's righteousness through modest behaviour by our
foremothers, and Haman's first interactions with Achashverosh regarding denigrating the Jewish
people.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

It is written in the Megillah [2:5]: There was a Jewish man in Shushan the capital, whose name
was Mordechai, son of Yair, son of Shimei, son of Kish, from the tribe of Binyamin.

The Gemora asks: He is called a Jew (Yehudi), which would imply that he is from the tribe of
Yehudah but the end of the verse explicitly states that he was from Binyamin. Rabbah bar bar
Chanah answers in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: His father was from Binyamin and his
mother was from Yehudah. Rabbi Nachman said: He was a man of distinguished character. The
Rabbis, however, said: The tribes would fight with one another. The tribe of Yehudah said: I am
responsible for the birth of Mordechai because David did not kill Shimei the son of Gera (who was
an ancestor of Mordechai), and the tribe of Binyamin said: He is actually descended from me.
Rava disagrees and posits that in fact, the opposite is true.

The Congregation of Israel attributed the blame for Haman’s decree to be Mordechai’s doing, as
Mordechai’s birth was the cause for their current difficulties. The Congregation of Israel declared:
“See what Yehudah and Binyamin did to me. Dovid, who was from the tribe of Yehudah, did not
kill Shimei. This act of passivity allowed for the birth of Mordechai, of whom Haman became
jealous. Furthermore, King Shaul, who was a descendant of the tribe of Binyamin, did not kill
Agag, and this oversight allowed for Haman, the enemy of the Jewish People, to be born.” Rabbi
Yochanan answers: Mordechai descended from Binyamin; the reason he was referred to as Yehudi
is because he rejected idolatry and Yehudi is the name given to one who denounces idolatry.

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Megillah_13.pdf

7
Rabbi Shimon ben Pazzi once introduced an exposition of the Book of Chronicles as follows: ‘All
your words are one, and we know how to find their interpretation.' He illustrates this as follows: It
is written: And his wife Yehudiyah bore Yered the father of Gedor, and Chever, the father of
Socho, and Yekusiel the father of Zanoach, and these are the sons of Bisyah the daughter of
Pharaoh, whom Mered took. He explains: Why was she the daughter of Pharaoh called Yehudiyah
(if her name in fact was Bisyah)? It is because she repudiated idolatry, as it is written: And
Pharaoh’s daughter went down to wash herself by the river. Rabbi Yochanan said: This teaches us
that she went down in order to cleanse herself from her father’s idols. He continues: ‘Bore,’ but
she only raised him (Moshe)?

This teaches us that if anyone raises an orphan boy or girl in his house, the Scripture accounts it
as if he gave birth to him. He continues: ‘Yered’: this is Moshe. Why was he called Yered? This
is because manna came down (yarad) for Israel in his days. ‘Gedor’ - he was so called because he
fenced in (gadar) the breaches of Israel. ‘Chever’ - because he joined (chibar) Israel to their Father
in Heaven. ‘Socho’ - because he was like a protective covering (sukkah) for Israel. ‘Yekusiel’ –
because Israel hoped in God (kavu la’Keil) in his days. ‘Zanoach’ - because he cast off their
inquities (through his prayers). ‘Father of,’ ‘father of’, ‘father of’: he was a father in Torah, a father
in wisdom and a father in prophecy. ‘These are the sons of Bisyah… whom Mered married.’ Was
Mered his name? Wasn’t Caleb his name? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let Caleb who
rebelled (marad) against the plan of the spies come and marry the daughter of Pharaoh who rebelled
against the idols of her father's house. It is written in the Megillah [2:6]: Who (Mordechai) had
been exiled from Jerusalem with the exiles that had been exiled along with Yechonyah, King of
Yehudahh, whom Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, had sent into exile. Rava said: He was not
forced into exile, but went by his own will.

It is written in the Megillah [2:7]: He raised his cousin Hadassah, also called Esther, for she had
neither father nor mother. She is called Hadassah and Esther. What, in fact, was her actual
name? Rabbi Meir said: Her real name was Esther, but she was referred to as Hadassah, because
the righteous are called myrtles. Rabbi Yehudah said: Her real name was Hadassah, but she was
referred to as Esther because she concealed her words (regarding her origin). Rabbi Nechemyah
said: Her real name was Hadassah, but she was referred to as Esther because the other nations
called her Esther, saying that she was as beautiful as the moon (istaher). Ben Azzai said: Esther
was neither too tall nor too short, but of medium size, like a myrtle. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah
said: Esther's complexion was greenish (similar to a myrtle), but she had grace (provided to her by
Hashem, making her appear beautiful).

It is written in the Megillah [2:7]: And when her father and mother died, Mordechai adopted her
as his daughter. Rav Acha said: When her mother became pregnant with her, her father died; when
she was born, her mother died. A Tanna learned in the name of Rabbi Meir: Do not read ‘as his
daughter', but ‘for a house,’ meaning to say that Mordechai married Esther.

It is written in the Megillah [2:9]: And the seven maids that were to be given her from the palace.
Rava said: She would count the days of the week by them. (She would know which day is Shabbos
when her “Shabbos” maid arrived). The verse continues: He also transferred her and her maids
to the best quarters in the harem. Rav said: He gave her kosher food to eat. Shmuel said: He gave

8
her fatty pork to eat. (There is a dispute between Rashi and Tosfos whether Esther actually ate the
pork.) Rabbi Yochanan said: He fed her seeds.

It is written in the Megillah: Six months with the oil of myrrh. What is the oil of myrrh? Rabbi
Chiya bar Abba said: Balsam. Rav Huna said: Oil from olives not a third grown. It has been taught
in a braisa: Rabbi Yehudah says that anpikinun is oil of olives not a third grown. Why is it (myrrh
oil) used for smearing? It is because it removes hair and makes the skin soft. It is further written:
In the evening she would come and the next morning she returned. The Gemora notes: From the
discreditable account of that wicked man we can learn something to his credit, namely, that he did
not have marital relations by day.

It is written: And Esther obtained favor. Rabbi Elozar said: This informs us that she appeared to
every man as a member of his own people. It is written: So Esther was taken to king Achashverosh
into his palace in the tenth month, which is the month of Teves. This is the month (due to its
coldness) when a body warms up another body.

And the king loved Esther above all the women, and she obtained grace and favor in his sight
more than all the other virgins. Rav said: If he wanted to experience in her the taste of a virgin he
found it; if the taste of a married woman, he found it.

It is written in the Megillah [2:18]: Then the king made a grand feast for all his ministers and
servants, The Feast of Esther. The Gemora explains that the purpose of this feast was to persuade
Esther into disclosing her true origins; Mordechai had instructed her not to disclose that she was
Jewish. The feast was made in her honor, but she did not concede. Achashverosh remitted the head
tax in her name, but she did not disclose her origins. He sent gifts (to important people in her
name), but she refused to reveal her origins. Achashverosh sought advice from Mordechai and he
went and gathered the maidens again, with the intent of making Esther jealous, causing her to
disclose her origins, but she still refused.

Rabbi Elozar said: Hashem always rewards the righteous person measure for measure. Because of
the modesty displayed by Rachel; the modest Shaul descended from her. And because of the
modesty displayed by Shaul; the modest Esther descended from him. The Gemora proceeds to
record the incident of Rachel’s modesty. It is written [Breishis 29:12]: And Yaakov told Rachel
that he was her father's brother. Was he her father's brother? Wasn’t he in fact the son of her father's
sister? This is the explanation: Yaakov said to Rachel, Will you marry me? She replied, yes, but
my father is a trickster, and he will outwit you. He replied: I am his brother in trickery. Rachel
asked him: Is it permitted for the righteous to indulge in trickery? He replied: Yes, and the Gemora
cites a verse in Shmuel proving that one is permitted to act crookedly with a crook. Yaakov asked
her: What is his trickery? She replied: I have a sister who is older than me and he will not let me
get married before her. Yaakov gave to Rachel certain identifying signs in order that Lavan would
not be able to exchange Leah, the older sister, with Rachel. When the wedding night came, Rachel
said to herself (upon realizing that her father intended to give Leah to Yaakov instead of her), my
sister will be embarrassed. She handed over the secret signs to her. It was due to this act of modesty
that Rachel merited having Shaul descend from her.

9
The Gemora records the modesty of Shaul. After Shmuel had anointed Shaul as the king, he met
his uncle who inquired of him where he was. Shaul did not tell him that he was anointed to be the
king and it was due to his modesty that he was rewarded with having Esther descend from him.
(13a – 13b) Rabbi Elozar further said: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, assigns greatness to a
man, he assigns it to his sons and his sons’ sons for all generations, as it is written: He establishes
them forever and they are exalted. If, however, he becomes haughty, the Holy One, Blessed be He,
lowers him, as it is written: And if they are bound in chains, etc.

It is written further: For Esther did the bidding of Mordechai. Rabbi Yirmiyah said: This means
that she used to show her menstrual blood to the Sages. ‘Like as when she was raised with him.’
Rabbah bar Lima said in the name of Rav: This means that she used to rise from the lap of
Achashverosh and immerse herself and sit in the lap of Mordechai.

It is written in the Megillah [2:21]: In those days, while Mordechai sat at the king's gate, Bigsan
and Seresh, two of the king's chamberlains from the threshold guards, became angry and
planned to assassinate King Achashverosh. Rabbi Yochanan said: Bigsan and Seresh were talking
in the Tarsian language, saying to each other how they were losing sleep on the account of
Achashverosh. (He was always thirsty and they had to provide him with water.) They plotted to
poison the king. They did not realize that Mordechai knew all seventy languages, including
Tarsian. He told Esther, who subsequently warned Achashverosh and they were killed.

It is written: After these things. After what? Rava said: After God had created a remedy for the
affliction (which was about to transpire). For Rish Lakish has said: The Holy One, Blessed be He,
does not smite Israel unless He has created for them a remedy beforehand, as it is written: When I
have healed Israel, then the iniquity of Ephraim will be uncovered. Not so, however, with the other
nations: He smites them first, and then creates for them a remedy, as it says: Hashem will smite
Egypt, smiting and healing. It is further written: But it seemed contemptible in his eyes to lay
hands on Mordechai alone. At first he (Haman) aimed at ‘Mordechai alone,’ then at ‘the people of
Mordechai’ — and who are these? The Rabbis; and finally at ‘all the Jews.’

It is written in the Megillah [3:7] In the first month, which is the month of Nissan, in the twelfth
year of King Achashverosh's reign, a pur, which is a lot, was cast before Haman, for every day
and every month, [and it fell] on the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar. We learned in
a braisa: When the lot fell on the month of Adar, Haman rejoiced greatly. He said: The lot has
fallen for me on the month in which Moshe died. He did not know, however, that Moshe died on
the seventh of Adar and was born on the seventh of Adar.

It is written: There is one people. Rava said: There never was a slanderer so skillful as Haman. He
said to Achashverosh, “Come, let us destroy them.” He replied:, “I am afraid of their God, lest He
do to me as He did to my predecessors.” Haman replied, “They are ‘negligent’ of the mitzvos.” He
said, “There are Rabbis among them.” Haman replied, “They are ‘one people.’ Should you say
that I will make a bald spot in your kingdom, I will reply that they are ‘scattered abroad among the
peoples.’ Should you say that there is some benefit in them, I will reply that ‘they are dispersed’
(mefurad) like a mule (pereidah) that does not bear fruit. Should you say that they occupy one
province, I will reply that ‘they are in all the provinces of your kingdom.’ Haman continued: ‘Their
laws are diverse from those of every other people’: they do not eat of our food, nor do they marry

10
our women, nor give us theirs in marriage. And they do not keep the king's laws,’ since they waste
the whole year by saying that today is the Shabbos or Passover. ‘Therefore it is not beneficial for
the king to tolerate them,’ because they eat and drink and mock the throne. For even if a fly falls
into the cup of one of them, he throws it out and drinks the wine, but if my master, the king, were
to touch his cup, he will throw it on the ground and not drink from it.

The Megillah states further [3:9]: If it pleases the King, let them be written for destruction, and
I will pay ten thousand silver talents to the functionaries, to be deposited in the King's treasuries.
Rish Lakish said: It was well known to Hashem that Haman would one day pay shekels for the
destruction of the Jewish people. Therefore He anticipated Haman’s shekalim with those of the
Jews. We have learned in a Mishna: On the first of Adar proclamation is made regarding the
shekalim.

RACHEL’S MODESTY

The Gemora proceeds to record the incident of Rachel’s modesty. It is written [Breishis 29:12]:
And Yaakov told Rachel that he was her father's brother. Was he her father's brother? Wasn’t he
in fact the son of her father's sister? This is the explanation: Yaakov said to Rachel, Will you marry
me? She replied, yes, but my father is a trickster, and he will outwit you. He replied: I am his
brother in trickery. Rachel asked him: Is it permitted for the righteous to indulge in trickery? He
replied: Yes, and the Gemora cites a verse in Shmuel proving that one is permitted to act crookedly
with a crook. Yaakov asked her: What is his trickery? She replied: I have a sister who is older than
me and he will not let me get married before her. Yaakov gave to Rachel certain identifying signs
in order that Lavan would not be able to exchange Leah, the older sister, with Rachel. When the
wedding night came, Rachel said to herself (upon realizing that her father intended to give Leah
to Yaakov instead of her), my sister will be embarrassed. She handed over the secret signs to her.
It was due to this act of modesty that Rachel merited having Shaul descend from her.

Dr. Mark Berkowitz cited the Ben Yehoyadah who explains this Gemora. He states that the secret
message and signs that Rachel and Yaakov exchanged on the first day that they spoke at the well
were kept secret by both of them for the seven years that Yaakov labored for Rachel’s hand in
marriage. He states that the only way that this secret could have worked and Leah could have
possibly replaced Rachel was if Yaakov and Rachel did not meet or talk during those seven years.
He points out that this is the great modesty that she displayed over these seven years.

Rabbi Aryeh Leib Scheinbaum3 provides a similar explanation.4 The Midrash teaches us that On
ben Peles was saved as a result of listening to his wife. She asked him, "What do you gain by being
involved in this dispute? Regardless of who triumphs, you still emerge as the loser. If Aharon is
selected as Kohein Gadol - you are his student. If Korach becomes the Kohein Gadol - you are still
nothing more than a student. Why involve yourself in a 'no win' situation?" On's wife spoke with
seichal, common sense. Is this a reason to praise her? Basically, she only did what any level-headed
person would do.

3
Peninim on the Torah Parshas Korach
4
This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network.

11
Horav Nosson Vachtfogel, zl, offers a penetrating insight into the matter. He cites the Talmud in
Megillah 13b where Rabbi Elazar claims that as reward for Rachel Imeinu's tznius, modesty, she
merited that Shaul Hamelech be descended from her. When did she demonstrate such exemplary
tznius? Chazal explain that when she gave her sister, Leah, the simanim, special signs, that Yaakov
Avinu had given her, she acted with exemplary modesty. Rashi explains that her tznius lay in the
fact that she never publicized her selfless act of devotion to her sister. She never divulged to
Yaakov what she had done. She was prepared to give up that for which she had strived for so much
- the opportunity to be the progenitor of the Shivtei Kah, tribes of Klal Yisrael. She did not once
call attention to her exemplary act of kindness. This is tznius at its zenith. Rav Nosson posits that
included in the middah of tznius is the ability to maintain a shev v'al taaseh, status quo, attitude in
regard to a situation in which one is unsure of what to do. He does not take a chance and plunge
forward regardless of the consequences. No - tznius demands that one sit back and not act, rather
than act rashly.

Likewise, one who is a tzanua will not divulge a secret. If one is asked for information about
someone and he does not know the person, it takes tznius to say, "I do not know." Regrettably,
there are those who are quick to conjecture and state their own opinions about someone, even
though they are baseless.

Rav Nosson remembers that, prior to being asked by Horav Aharon Kotler, zl, to become the first
Mashgiach of the Beth Medrash Govohah, he was asked by a talmid, close student, of Rav Aharon
regarding a controversial sefer that was on the table in one of the yeshivah's classrooms. The
Mashgiach responded, "I do not know." This response prompted the talmid to approach Rav
Aharon and suggest that Rav Nosson be appointed as Mashgiach of the yeshivah. It takes someone
who possesses the strength of character to assert "I do not know" to be the Mashgiach of the
Lakewood Yeshivah.

This was the power of On ben Peles' wife. She had the ability to see and stress the shev v'al taaseh
attitude: "If either way you will not be the victor, why bother involving yourself in the fray of the
controversy? Stay at home and stay out of trouble." It takes tznius to act in such a manner. On was
fortunate that his wife had the necessary character trait - and he had the wisdom to listen to her.

PRAISE FOR MORDECHAI FOR SAVING THE JEWS, OR BLAME FOR

ENDANGERING THEM

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:5

The Rabanan say that the tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin claimed credit for the miracle of Purim.
The family of Yehudah claimed credit because David ha'Melech refrained from killing Shim'i ben

5
https://dafyomi.co.il/megilah/insites/mg-dt-013.htm

12
Gera, from whom Mordechai descended. The family of Binyamin claimed credit because
Mordechai came from the tribe of Binyamin.

Rava disagrees and says that Mordechai not only deserves no credit for the salvation, but he
deserves the blame for the troubles that befell the Jewish people in his time. According to Rava,
Keneses Yisrael (the Jewish people) bemoaned what the families of Yehudah and Binyamin
caused: The decision of David ha'Melech (who came from Yehudah) to spare Shim'i ben Gera led
to the birth of Mordechai, who aroused the enmity of Haman and thereby endangered the entire
Jewish people. The decision of Shaul ha'Melech (who came from Binyamin) to spare Agag led to
the birth of Haman, who threatened the Jewish people with annihilation.

How can Rava suggest an allegation against Mordechai for provoking Haman's wrath? Mordechai
acted entirely in accordance with the Halachah when he refused to bow down to Haman (who was
deifying himself).

The Gemara earlier (6b) discusses whether or not a Tzadik may confront a Rasha who is
experiencing good fortune ("ha'Sha'ah Mesachekes Lo"). The Gemara concludes that even if the
Tzadik is a Tzadik Gamur (a total Tzadik), he should not contend with a Rasha in worldly matters.
The Gemara in Berachos (7b; see TUREI EVEN to Megilah 6b) records a similar discussion and
concludes that even with regard to spiritual matters, a Tzadik may contend with a Rasha only when
he is a "Tzadik Gamur" (an "absolute Tzadik").

A Tzadik who is not a Tzadik Gamur should not contend with a Rasha at all, even in spiritual
matters (as long as suppressing his aggravation with the Rasha does not cause him to transgress
the Torah). (See the Gemara in Berachos 7a, which says that a Tzadik Gamur will experience no
suffering in this world, and Ta'anis 21a: "If you [Nachum Ish Gam Zu] are a Tzadik Gamur, then
why are you suffering?" See also MAHARSHA there.)

Haman's demand that the Jews bow down to him clearly involved a spiritual matter; he was
antagonizing the Jews and insisting that they worship him (Megilah 10b). Although the Halachah
may have permitted one to bow down to Haman under the circumstances, Mordechai's intent was
to protest against the Rasha in a spiritual matter. His refusal to bow down to Haman was motivated
by his desire to affect a Kidush Hash-m (see TOSFOS to Shabbos 72b, end of DH Amar Rava).
The question of whether Mordechai is to be praised or blamed for the events of Purim may depend
on whether Mordechai was considered a Tzadik Gamur or not. Those who claim that Mordechai
is to blame for endangering the Jewish people maintain that he was not a Tzadik Gamur (see later,
16b) and thus he was not entitled to confront Haman. Those who claim that Mordechai is to be
praised maintain that he was a Tzadik Gamur and was permitted to confront Haman.

The way in which Mordechai is praised in the prayers of Purim today demonstrates that the
Halachah follows the opinion that Mordechai was correct in his refusal to bow down to Haman
because he was considered a Tzadik Gamur. Perhaps this is the reason why the Targum always
refers to Mordechai as "Mordechai Tzadika," "Mordechai the Tzadik." The Targum wants to
emphasize that Mordechai was a Tzadik Gamur and therefore he was justified in confronting
Haman.

13
 YOM KIPPUR: PREPARING TO COME BEFORE THE KING

The verse in Esther (2:12) states that before each maiden went before the king during the selection
process for the new queen, she would undergo a treatment "like the treatment of women for twelve
months, for so were the days of their anointing (Yemei Merukeihen): six months with oil of myrrh
(Shemen ha'Mor) and six months with perfumes and women's ointments. With this, the maiden
would come to the king." The Gemara quotes Rav Huna who says that "Shemen ha'Mor" is oil
from olives which did not reach more than a third of their growth. Such oil was used "because it
removes the hair and softens the flesh."

The VILNA GA'ON (Esther 2:12) suggests that the Megilah's discussion of how the maidens
prepared themselves and smeared themselves with oil in preparation for their audition with
Achashverosh alludes to the way a person must prepare himself to stand before the King of kings
on Yom Kippur.

The verse says that each maiden ("Na'arah") was given twelve months to prepare to come before
the king, just as a bride is given twelve months to prepare for her wedding (Kesuvos 57a). The
Zohar uses the word "Na'arah" (maiden) to refer to a person's Neshamah. Hence, the verse means
that one's Neshamah is given twelve months to prepare to come before the King, Hash-m. The
Vilna Ga'on explains as follows.

The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (17a) teaches that Hash-m is "Ma'avir Rishon Rishon" -- He
"removes" the first sin that a person commits and does not hold the person accountable for it. The
Vilna Ga'on explains that this means that Hash-m expunges all of a person's sins, one at a time, as
the RAMBAM writes.6

The Vilna Ga'on adds that Hash-m removes a person's sins only if he repents. However, when a
person repents during the days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, his repentance is often
done "under duress" and may not be fully sincere. Therefore, although Hash-m removes the sins,
they are not yet completely forgiven. Rather, Hash-m gives the person twelve months -- the
duration of the coming year after Yom Kippur -- to prove the sincerity of his Teshuvah.

If he does not repeat the sin during those twelve months, he shows that his Teshuvah was sincere,
and Hash-m then wipes out the sin entirely and completely exonerates him. Until that time,
however, Hash-m suspends the sin while He waits to see if the person will refrain from doing it
again. If the person returns to his sin during those twelve months, Hash-m reinstates the sin on the
person's account and counts it against him retroactively (for example, it may increase the
punishment decreed for the person due to his other sins).

When the verse says that each Na'arah -- referring to every person's Neshamah -- was given twelve
months for "the days of their anointing (Yemei Merukeihen)," it refers to the twelve-month period
which determines whether a person's Teshuvah was sincere. "Merukeihen" comes from the word
"Merok," which means to "cleanse." The twelve months of "Yemei Merukeihen" allude to the

6
Hilchos Teshuvah 3:5

14
twelve months a person is given to completely cleanse himself of his sins that were temporarily
suspended on Yom Kippur.

The verse continues and describes how those twelve months are to be used to wipe out the sins
that were suspended on Yom Kippur.

First, "six months with Shemen ha'Mor" removes the body hair, as Rav Huna here says. Hair is the
only part of the body that serves primarily an aesthetic purpose. As such, it symbolizes the
extraneous luxuries in a person's life which keep him ensnared in the pursuit of materialistic
pleasure. By working for six months to remove those luxuries, a person is able to extract himself
from the lure of worldly pleasures and overcome his Yetzer ha'Ra to sin again. (Ha'Ga'on Rav
Moshe Shapiro explained that "softening the flesh" also alludes to removing all external influences
which adversely affect the body. Alternatively, it may represent becoming "soft like flesh," an
allusion to humbling oneself; see Sotah 5a)

The next six months are "six months with perfumes and women's ointments." After one has
removed the "hair" of worldly luxuries, he must strive to bring holiness into his life through the
scrupulous fulfillment of Mitzvos Aseh, the positive Mitzvos. Mitzvos Aseh are represented by
"perfumes" because they bring a sweet scent into a person's life like perfumes. One also must work
on cleansing himself by fulfilling all of the Mitzvos Lo Ta'aseh, the negative Mitzvos, which are
represented by "Tamrukei Nashim" ("women's ointments"). As mentioned above, the word
"Tamrukei" comes from the word "Merok," which means to cleanse oneself of the temptation to
sin.

After those twelve months, "with this, the maiden would come to the king." On the following Yom
Kippur, twelve months after a person repented and resolved not to sin again, the person's
Neshamah is prepared to come before the King to ask for complete forgiveness. Since he
successfully avoided returning to his old sins which Hash-m temporarily suspended, Hash-m sees
that his Teshuvah was sincere. Hash-m then completely forgives the sins that were suspended on
the previous Yom Kippur.
HA'GA'ON RAV SHLOMO WOLBE zt'l (in ALEI SHUR 3:16, p. 430, footnote) adds that this
approach explains the text of the blessing in the Shemoneh Esreh of Yom Kippur: "Baruch Atah
Hash-m, Melech Mochel v'Sole'ach la'Avonoseinu... u'Ma'avir Ashmoseinu b'Chol Shanah
v'Shanah..." -- "the King Who pardons and forgives our sins... and removes our sins each and every
year." After we say that Hash-m pardons and forgives our sins, why do we add that He "removes
our sins each and every year"? If He already forgave our sins, what is left for Him to remove each
year? What is this "removal" of sins if not forgiveness?

Rav Wolbe explains that the blessing refers to the two types of forgiveness Hash-m grants on Yom
Kippur. First, He looks at the sins of the year before the outgoing year, which He suspended last
Yom Kippur and for which He waited until this Yom Kippur to see whether the person's Teshuvah
was sincere. If He sees that the person did not return to those sins, He "pardons and forgives" them
completely. Second, He looks at the sins of the outgoing year, and if He sees that the person is
trying to correct his ways and do Teshuvah, He removes them and suspends them for twelve
months until Yom Kippur of the following year. If, on the next Yom Kippur, He sees that the

15
person achieved a full and sincere Teshuvah for those sins, He completely pardons the person for
his sins.

HAMAN'S 10,000 KIKAR OF SILVER

The Gemara relates that Hash-m foresaw that Haman would pay 10,000 Kikar-weights of silver to
Achashverosh in return for the right to kill all of the Jews. Hash-m "prepared the cure before the
illness": He commanded the Jews who left Mitzrayim (nearly 1000 years before the events of
Purim) to donate a half-Shekel each to the Mishkan (Shemos 30:13).

TOSFOS (16a) writes that the total weight of the silver Shekalim which the Jews gave in the
wilderness was equal to the 10,000 Kikar of silver which Haman offered Achashverosh.

The words of Tosfos are puzzling. The total weight of the half-Shekels which the 600,000 Jews
donated does not come near 10,000 Kikar of silver. In fact, the Torah explicitly states that the total
weight of the Shekalim was just 100 Kikar (Shemos 38:26-7), only a fraction (1/100) of what
Haman gave to Achashverosh. (See MAHARSHA, CHIZKUNI to Shemos 30:14, VILNA
GA'ON to Esther 3:9, RAV TZADOK HA'KOHEN in Divrei Sofrim (p. 84), and others.) Many
answers have been offered by the Rishonim and Acharonim to this question.

(a) One explanation is based on the Midrash (Esther Rabah 7:19) which explains that Haman
paid 50 Shekels (or 100 times a half-Shekel) for each of the 600,000 Jews who left
Mitzrayim. RABEINU BACHYE (Shemos 38:25) elaborates on this. The Torah ascribes a
Halachic value (Erech) to a person based on his gender and age group (Vayikra 27).
The highest value ascribed to any person is 50 Shekels. Haman therefore gave that amount for
each of the 600,000 Jews.7
Tosfos, however, says that Haman paid "half a Shekel" -- and not 50 Shekels -- for each Jew. RAV
YAKOV EMDEN suggests that the text of Tosfos in our edition may be an error caused by a
printer's misreading of an acronym. The original text of Tosfos may have read that Haman paid
"Ches-Shin" (the letter "Ches" for Chamishim (fifty), and the letter "Shin" for "Shekalim") for
each Jew. In a later edition the acronym was misinterpreted as "Chatzi Shekel" (a half-Shekel) for
each Jew.

(b) Others point out that the discrepancy is lessened significantly by a detail mentioned in the
Gemara in Bechoros (5a). The Gemara there says that the Kikar-weight used in the Mishkan was
not the ordinary Kikar but rather it was double the value of the ordinary Kikar. Each Kikar of the
Torah equals two ordinary Kikars. Haman presumably used the ordinary Kikar-weight of silver.
(See PNEI YEHOSHUA and others)

This lessens the discrepancy by half, but it does not fully explain Tosfos' calculation. Haman still
paid 50 times more than the value of the half-Shekels the Jews gave in the wilderness.

7
Although many Jews obviously had a lower Erech due to their gender or age group, Haman did not want to take any chances and
thus he gave the highest Erech for every Jewish soul. See also SEFER ROKE'ACH #235 and the Roke'ach's commentary on the
Torah, end of Parshas Bechukosai.

16
(c) However, further investigation demonstrates that the silver paid by Haman to Achashverosh
was exactly equal in value to the weight of the half-Shekels donated to the Mishkan. It can be
proven that each of Haman's Shekalim were worth only one-fiftieth of the value of an ordinary
Shekel. He paid 50 times the amount which the Jews gave in order to compensate for the difference
in value of the two types of Shekel.

The Gemara in Kidushin (12a) quotes Shmuel who says, "If a man betroths a young woman with
a date fruit, although dates [in their region] are so inexpensive that a 'Kur' of them are sold for one
Dinar, we must nevertheless assume that Kidushin has taken effect (and the woman must receive
a legal divorce before she may marry someone else) because in the country of Mede, a single date
is indeed worth a Perutah."

Shmuel seems to be saying that since dates were in high demand in Mede they were worth more
there than in other countries (see Rashi there). The VILNA GA'ON (printed at the end of
Mishnayos Zera'im, and in Kol Eliyahu #226), however, understands Shmuel's statement
differently. The Vilna Ga'on contends that it was not the value of dates that was different in Mede,
but rather the value of silver. Silver was so abundant in Mede that even for a single date the Medes
were willing to pay a Perutah, a coin whose value is determined by the price of silver. He bases
his interpretation on a verse in Yeshayah (13:17) which states that Hash-m will deliver Bavel into
the hands of the Medes, "who do not value silver and who are not interested in gold."

The Medes to whom the verse refers are the ones who conquered Nevuchadnetzar of Bavel and
later shared a kingdom with Achashverosh of Persia (see Megilah 11a). It can be assumed that the
Medes and Persians shared a common currency system as well.

The relationship between the value of silver in the kingdom of Persia-Mede and in other areas can
be calculated as follows:

1. In areas other than Persia-Mede, a Kur's measure of dates sold for one Dinar, as the Gemara in
Kidushin says. According to that ratio, what measure of dates sold for one Perutah?
The conversion rates of volume are: 1 Kur = 30 Se'ah, 1 Se'ah = 144 Beitzah (see Rashi Eruvin
83b).

One Dinar is equivalent to 144 Perutah (according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in Kidushin 12a,
whose assessment of the value of the Perutah is the largest of all of the opinions).

Accordingly, 30 Beitzah-measures of dates sold for one Perutah. This is in stark contrast to Persia-
Mede, where only one date could be acquired for the same Perutah's worth of silver.

2. How many dates fit into the size of 30 Beitzah-measures? The Vilna Ga'on asserts in his
commentary on Mishlei (22:9), based on the Midrash ha'Zohar, that 3 1/3 olives fit into the volume
of one Beitzah. Consequently, the problem may be expressed as, "How many dates fit into the size
of 100 olives (i.e. 30 eggs)?"

17
3. The answer to this may be inferred from the Gemara in Kerisus (14a) which states that exactly
two olives fit into the volume of one date. Accordingly, exactly 50 dates fit into the volume of 100
olives.

4. This means that 50 dates, the equivalent of 30 Beitzah-measures of dates, cost one Perutah in
all other places, while in Persia-Mede each date cost one Perutah. The silver in that kingdom
obviously was worth one-fiftieth the value of silver elsewhere.
This explains why Haman, who lived in the kingdom of Persia-Mede, paid exactly 50 times the
amount of silver that the Jews donated to the Mishkan in order to buy the right to destroy them.

"SLEEPING" FROM THE MITZVOS

When Haman presented to Achashverosh his plan for the destruction of the Jews, he argued,
"Yeshno Am Echad" -- "there exists a certain nation" (Esther 3:8). The Gemara explains that
Haman said, "There is a certain nation which is sleeping (Yeshno) from the Mitzvos."

What was the meaning of Haman's statement that the Jews were "sleeping" from the Mitzvos, and
why did he use that argument to persuade Achashverosh to give him the right to kill them?

Haman reasoned that his attempts to destroy the Jewish people would be successful because the
Jews' fulfillment of the Mitzvos had become so heartless; their apathy towards the Mitzvos would
forfeit any Divine protection they might otherwise have been entitled to receive. Hash-m
responded to their indolent performance of the Mitzvos measure for measure by acting as though
He was sleeping, and He did not reveal His presence to them. Indeed, the Midrash relates that
Haman claimed that Hash-m was "sleeping from protecting His people," and it cites the verse
(Tehilim 44:24), "Arouse! Why should You sleep, Hash-m!" (See Esther Rabah 7:12, 10:1.)

The verse later in the Megilah says, "ba'Lailah ha'Hu Nadedah Shenas ha'Melech" -- "on that
night, the king's sleep was disturbed" (Esther 6:1). The Midrash (Esther Rabah 10:1) comments
that this verse refers to Hash-m's sleep. When the Jews realized the imminent danger that faced
them, they repented and turned to Hash-m in fervent prayer and fasting. They aroused themselves
from their slumber, and in return Hash-m aroused Himself from His slumber, so to speak --
"va'Yikatz k'Yashen Hash-m" -- "and Hash-m woke up like one who sleeps" (Tehilim 78:65,
Esther Rabah 7:12). When the Jews repented sincerely and accepted upon themselves to fulfill the
Torah as though it was the first time they received it -- as the verse says, "Kiyemu v'Kiblu" (Esther
9:27; Shabbos 88a) -- Hash-m responded accordingly and treated the Jews with a display of
renewed love.

This theme is reflected in other elements of Purim. The Gemara (7b) states that a person should
become inebriated on Purim "Ad d'Lo Yada Bein Baruch Mordechai l'Arur Haman," until he does
not know the difference between "Blessed is Mordechai" and "Cursed is Haman."

18
The REMA (OC 695:2) rules that the Gemara does not mean that one should get drunk, but rather
that one should drink a little more than usual and then go to sleep. Perhaps the reason why a person
should fulfill the Halachah of "Ad d'Lo Yada" in this way is to commemorate the events of Purim.
The Jews were "sleeping from the Mitzvos," and Hash-m reacted as though He was asleep.
Through the miraculous events of Purim, the Jews were inspired to do Teshuvah and to awaken
themselves from their slumber, and they thereby became worthy of Hash-m awaking from His
slumber, so to speak.

In addition, the Gemara (10b) says that the name "Mordechai" comes from the words "Mor Deror"
(or "Meira Dachya" in Aramaic). "Mor Deror" was the first of the spices and herbs used in the
Shemen ha'Mishchah and the Ketores (Shemos 30:23). Just as the aroma of the ingredients of the
Ketores continually stimulated the senses and no one ever tired of the smell, so, too, Mordechai
aroused the people to renew their love for Hash-m to such a degree that their love would never
become dull.

The Mishnah in Yoma (26a) alludes to this quality of the Ketores when it says, "Chadashim
la'Ketores" (only "new" Kohanim who had never before offered the Ketores were permitted to
participate in the lottery for offering the Ketores). A characteristic of the aromatic Ketores is that
its sweet smell arouses people to renew their love for Hash-m. Perhaps this quality is reflected in
the enactment that only "new" Kohanim ("Chadashim") may offer the Ketores. New Kohanim,
who have never performed the Avodah of the Ketores, will perform the Mitzvah with great zeal
and love.

This element of Purim -- the Jews' awakening from their slumber -- explains why Rebbi Yehoshua
ben Levi ruled (4a) that "one is obligated to read the Megilah at night and to repeat it at day
(u'Leshanosah ba'Yom)." This was an odd way to say that the Megilah should be read a second
time. Indeed, this phrase confused his students who thought that he meant that the Mishnayos of
Maseches Megilah should be learned ("Leshanosah") during the day. Why did Rebbi Yehoshua
ben Levi state his ruling in such a way instead of saying simply that one must "read the Megilah
again" during the day?

Moreover, TOSFOS there (4a, DH Chayav) writes that the main reading is the daytime one. If the
first reading of the Megilah is at night, why is the main reading during the day?

The answer may be that the Chachamim deliberately enacted that the Megilah be read during the
day a second time and that the daytime reading be the main one, and they emphasized that the
daytime reading is a repetition of the first reading ("Leshanosah"). Their intention was to stress
that when we read the Megilah a second time, we do so with zeal and excitement to show that we
are not bored with the Mitzvah. We thereby rectify the shortcoming of the people at the time of
Purim.

19
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:8

Much of the first perek of Masechet Megillah is devoted to a line-by-line Midrashic commentary
of the pesukim of Megillat Esther. Our daf focuses on some of the goings-on in the third chapter,
where we are introduced to Haman and his dastardly plan for destroying the Jews. Here are some
of the interpretations suggested by the Sages to pesukim in this perek:

Haman casts lots (see pasuk 7) to decide when to unleash the masses against the Jews, and the
lottery falls on the eleventh month – the month of Adar. The baraita teaches that Haman was
pleased to find that the lottery had fallen on Adar, which is the anniversary of Rabbeinu’s death;
he did not realize that, although Moshe died on the seventh day of Adar, he was also born on that
same date. The Maharsha points out that while it is fairly simple to derive the month – and even
the day – of Moshe’s death from the pesukim in Sefer Devarim, the only way to determine when
he was born is by relying on the Rabbinic tradition that God allows the righteous to complete their
years, by taking back their souls on the same day on which they were born.

Among the reasons Haman gives to Achashverosh for why the Jews should be destroyed is that
they keep different traditions than others: They do not join in eating with others, nor do they
intermarry with them, and they do not keep the traditions of the king – rather, they spend the entire
year bi-sh’hi pe’hi. This enigmatic phrase is understood by most of the commentaries to be
abbreviations:

• sh’hi = Shabbat ha-yom – today is the Sabbath

• pe’hi = Pesach ha-yom – today is the holiday of Passover.

In other words, they claim to have religious holidays throughout the year, which gives them more
vacation days than working days!

It is difficult to determine whether this is the actual intent of the expression. In any case, it also
carries the connotation of lethargy and time-wasting – she-hiya u’batalah.

Haman succeeds in convincing the king to agree to his request. In Rabbi Abba’s opinion, this is
because Achashverosh was a true partner with Haman in his hate of the Jews.

Chazal tell us (Megilla 13a) that when the Torah says that Pharaoh's daughter went down to wash
in the Nile (Shemos 2:5), it means that she intended to wash herself of the idolatry of her father's

8
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_megillah915/

20
house. Why did she choose this time to remove the influence of idolatry from herself, and why is
the idolatry referred to as “the idolatry of her father's house”?9

Chasam Sofer points out that perhaps these questions can be answered by analyzing another
question. In the beginning of Parashas Shemos the Torah says (Shemos 1:8), "And there arose a
new king over Egypt who did not know Yosef. He said to his people, ‘Let us deal wisely with
them.’” Why does it mention that this new king did not know Yosef? It was known to the Egyptians
that the famine ended after only two years only through the blessing Yaakov gave to Pharaoh that
the Nile would rise up for him.

As long as the Egyptians were cognizant that the new abundance in their land was a direct result
of the family head of Bnei Yisrael, they would not be able to bring themselves to do evil against
Bnei Yisrael, especially not to throw their children into the Nile. Knowing this, Pharaoh set himself
up as a deity and claimed that the Nile rose through his powers and not because of the blessing of
Yaakov, as Yosef had told the Egyptians.

Therefore, it was only through convincing the Egyptian people that they know nothing of Yosef
that Pharaoh could promulgate his evil decrees. This fits in with the explanation of Rabbenu
Bachya at the beginning of Parashas Mikketz, that when Pharaoh told his dreams to Yosef he
described himself as standing over the Nile. Now we can understand why the daughter of Pharaoh
is described as washing herself from “the idolatry of her father.”

She was washing herself from any belief in her father's claim that he was the source of the
prosperity of Egypt, and she recognized that the blessing for the country came through the blessing
of Yaakov. It was at that point that she was in the position to contradict her father's decree and to
rescue a Jewish child put out to float in a basket on the Nile River, as it seemed unjust to her that
a descendant of Yaakov should be killed in that same Nile River which was blessed by Yaakov to
bring prosperity to the land of Egypt.

He said to her, “I am his brother in deceipt.” She said to him, “Is it permitted for righteous people
to use deceipt?” He answered, “Yes [as the verse says,] “With a pure person you act purely and
with a crooked person you act crookedly.”

In the Gemara in Bava Kama (1) Ben Bag Bag states that one may not enter into another’s field to
recover his property without permission from the owner lest he appear like a thief.

9
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Megilla%20013.pdf

21
Sha’ar Mishpat (2) cites authorities who write that Ben Bag Bag is not merely offering good
advice; rather he is expressing the halacha that it is prohibited to recover one’s property if it must
be done through theft. Sha’ar Mishpat further wonders why Rambam and Shulchan Aruch do not
codify this statement. Minchas Chinuch (3) suggests that since the ruling is cited in the name of a
single authority, Rambam and Shulchan Aruch must maintain that the other authorities dispute this
ruling and they follow the majority opinion against Ben Bag Bag.

Rav Yosef Chaim of Baghdad (4), the Ben Ish Chai, qualifies the dispute and writes that the dispute
does not apply in a case where the thief is powerful and uses deception to unlawfully claim
ownership of another’s property. In such a circumstance all opinions would agree that one could
employ deception to recover his property.

Ben Ish Chai cites as proof to this assertion the conversation between Yaakov and Rochel as
recounted in our Gemara. Although Rochel challenged Yaakov as to whether it is permitted to
employ deception against her father, he assured her that it is permitted. This incident clearly
indicates that one may lie or use deception to save one’s property from a swindler who is trying to
unlawfully take his property.

Rav Baruch Schneerson (5) offers an example of this principle. If a swindler falsifies a document
that indicates that one owes him money it is permitted to falsify a receipt that indicates the money
was repaid, but only in a circumstance where it is clear that the other party is acting deceitfully.

A chossid once asked Rav Pinchas of Koritz, zt”l, “In Megillah 13 we find that although Haman
knew that Moshe Rabbeinu had died during Adar, he was completely unaware that he had also
been born then. Why did Haman only know about the yahrtzeit of Moshe Rabbeinu and not his
birthday?” The tzaddik explained, “One can easily deduce the day of Moshe Rabbeinu’s death
from scripture itself. The verse says that the Jewish people went up to the Yarden on the tenth of
the first month, Nisan. (Yehoshua 4)

If one subtracts the thirty days of mourning during which they did not travel and the three days
during which they were told to prepare food for the journey, we see clearly that the day of death

22
must have been the seventh of Adar. Regarding Moshe Rabbeinu’s birthday, we must rely on the
oral Torah. Chazal learned from the word ‫ היו‬in Devarim 31:2 that Moshe Rabbeinu was exactly
one hundred and twenty years old on the day he died. (Devarim 4:7, Sotah 13b). Apparently,
although Haman knew ‘the Bible,’ he was ignorant of the derashos of Chazal!”

Rav Leibele Eiger, zt”l, answered the question differently. “Haman did not understand that the
reason Moshe Rabbeinu died at this point was that he had reached his completion. This is why he
died on the day that he was born—to demonstrate that, for him, death was really only a birth into
the life of the next world, and none of his greatness was diminished in any way. This is especially
true of a tzaddik who dies on the day that he was actually born. Haman was completely ignorant
of this. He foolishly thought that Moshe Rabbeinu’s birthday was irrelevant because, in his eyes,
his death meant that his influence was ended.

Quite the contrary— when a tzaddik dies, he is greater than he was when he was alive!” (Chulin
7b)

Rabbi Seth Goren

One of my mentors used to say that one of the best things about converting to Judaism is that you
get to choose your own Jewish family. And that’s true even more broadly: The way in which we
find and choose our families can be a beautiful thing. The familial relationships we opt for, or
happen into, can be just as strong as the ones we’re born into.

Our daf lays out several ways in which we create and join families through our own choices and
actions.

23
Our text grounds itself in I Chronicles 4:18: “And his [Caleb’s] Judahite wife bore Jered father of
Gedor, Heber father of Soco, and Jekuthiel father of Zanoah. These were the sons of Bithiah
daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered [also known as Caleb] married.”

This verse, taken from a lengthy list of genealogies, is, on its face, rather ordinary. However, the
Gemara claims that several figures named in this verse — Jered and Gedor, Heber and Soco,
Jekuthiel and Zanoah — all refer to Moses. The Gemara doesn’t explicitly lay out exactly how this
is possible — each of those pairs, the verse tells us, are fathers and sons — but it does answer
some other questions for us.

First, why is Pharaoh's daughter Bithiah, who by all biblical accounts wasn’t Jewish, referred to
as a Judahite? (The Hebrew word for Judahite, hayehudiah, could be translated as “Jewish
woman.”) The Gemara answers:

Because she repudiated idol worship, as it is written: “And the daughter of Pharaoh came
down to wash herself in the river.” (Exodus 2:5) And Rabbi Yohanan said: She went down to
wash and purify herself from the idols of her father’s house.

Perhaps she wasn’t quite a member of the tribe of Judah, which is also a fair translation of
hayehudiah. Still, the Gemara finds a way to make Bithiah a member of the tribe, a status she
creates through her own spiritual choices. Moreover, as Maimonides would write centuries
later, Jews through conversion effectively become the children of our biblical ancestors and have
as close a relationship with them as born Jews, making us all indistinguishable members of the
Jewish family.

Second, the nature of Pharaoh's daughter’s relationship to Moses is a little puzzling. What’s going
on here exactly?

The Gemara asks: Pharaoh’s daughter bore Moses? But didn’t she merely raise him? Rather,
it is telling you that with regard to anyone who raises an orphan boy or girl in his house, the
verse ascribes him credit as if he gave birth to him.

For those of us who become parents through non-traditional means, there’s something beautiful
and affirming about this: The children we raise are our own. We are not diminished in comparison
to a biological parent. Adoptive parents are parents, period.

Finally, we return to the text of I Chronicles for a third take on parenthood and family:

The Gemara notes that the words “father of” appear three times in that same verse: “And his
wife Hajehudijah bore Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel
the father of Zanoah.” This teaches that Moses was a father to all of the Jewish people in three
respects: A father in Torah, a father in wisdom, and a father in prophecy.

Again, we’re presented with a different way of thinking about family: Our spiritual descendants
are our children. Our intellectual legacy can be thought of as generating a type of parenthood.
As commentary on this page asserts, “Teachers who invest themselves in the education of their

24
students in Torah, mitzvot, and proper behavior are also considered partners in their birth, as the
students are also called ‘children.’”

So what makes a family? From today’s page, we see that family can come about through your
actions, through the role you play in someone’s life, or through the legacy you leave for others.
We are as much a part of our families of choice as we are our biological families. And our chosen
family bonds are just as real and true as the ones into which we are born.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:

Our daf (Megillah 13b) provides us with a stark reminder that the Jewish people are in danger
when those with influence or power use their platforms to slander Jews – no matter how illogical
or irrational such slander is - for it is here that Rava teaches us: ‫‘ – ליכא דידע לישנא בישא כהמן‬there
was no one who knew how to slander [as skillfully] as Haman’.

As the Gemara proceeds to explain, initially Haman proposed to Achashverosh, ‘come let us
destroy [the Jews]’, but Achashverosh responded by saying, ‘I am afraid of their God that He
should not do to me as He did to my predecessors’ and therefore refused to do so.
But we are then taught – on the basis of Esther 3:8 ( ‫ֶיְשׁנוֹ ַﬠם ֶאָחד ְמֻפָזּר וְּמֹפָרד ֵבּין ָהַﬠִמּים ְבֹּכל ְמִדינוֹת‬
‫ ֵאיָנם ֹעִשׂים‬r‫ – )ַמְלכוֶּת§ ְוָדֵתיֶהם ֹשׁנוֹת ִמָכּל ָﬠם ְוֶאת ָדֵּתי ַהֶמֶּל‬that Haman made series of slanderous arguments
to Achashverosh about the Jewish people.

For example, from the word ‫ – ֶיְשׁנוֹ‬which can be understood as being etymologically related to the
concept of ‘sleeping’ - Haman accused the Jewish people of being ‘sleepy’ (i.e. negligent) in their
performance of mitzvot and therefore unworthy of divine protection, while from the words ‫ְוָדֵתיֶהם‬
‫ֹשׁנוֹת ִמָכּל ָﬠם‬, Haman emphasizes the particularity of the Jewish people who ‘do not eat from our
food, and do not intermarry’, while then adding that Jews regularly cease work due to Shabbat and
Festivals.

Clearly, what Haman argues is self-contradictory. He first claims the Jewish people are lax in their
religious observance, and then argues that it is their particular religious observances that serves as
a separation between them and the rest of the people. And though - in response to Haman’s claim
that Jews do not keep the mitzvot - Achashverosh initially interrupts him and states that there are
those Jews who do fully observe the mitzvot, all Haman does is flip his argument by then focusing
on the so-called offence caused by those who are mitzvah observant, by which point Achashverosh
is silent - notwithstanding the fact that Haman himself already admitted to the fact that only some
Jews do what he claims to be so offensive.

And this is the problem and danger of slander - because though easily debunked, slander rests on
half-truths that have been cynically manipulated by those who wish to do harm, whose proponents
rely on the intellectual laziness of their listeners to overlook the self-contradictory messages
inherent in what has been said. And what is particularly scary is that, even today, the Jewish people
continue to be slandered, and notwithstanding the instant access to so much information, there are
still many people around the world who - despite their claim of intellectual honesty – choose to

25
buy into the easily challenged falsehoods that have been cynically crafted by those who wish to do
harm to the Jewish people.

And this is why, when we encounter such slander we must debunk it, and when those who claim
to be intellectually honest share slander, they must be challenged because, to quote the great Elie
Wiesel, “we must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages
the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are
endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become
irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political
views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe.”

Esther Did Not Reveal Her People or Her Kindred

26
Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom writes:10

I would like to focus our attention on one of the central characters in the text, the heroine for
whom the scroll is named. We will begin our essay with an inquiry into Esther’s comportment as
detailed in Chapter 2; before resolving some of the difficulties in that selection, we will analyze
some of her actions that play a pivotal role in our salvation.

When we are first introduced to the future queen of Persia, we are told that she has two names:
Hadassah, Hi Esther – (Hadassah – that is, Esther). In previous years we have directly presented
the cultural context for these two names – her proper name, Hadassah, and her Persian name
“Esther” which some have associated with Astarte, the goddess of fertility. (Mordechai’s name is,
similarly, related to Marduk, the god of creation in the Babyonian pantheon). Truth to tell, this is
only one of several approaches suggested by Haza”l to resolving her “double-identity”. This year,
we will utilize another theory advanced in the Gemara:

R. Yehudah says: Hadassah was her name — Why then was she called Esther? Because she
concealed [mastereth] the facts about herself. (BT Megilah 13a). The concealment to which R.
Yehudah refers is explicit in the verse that describes Esther’s behavior in the “spa” during the
twelve months of preparation for her meeting with the king:

Esther did not make known her people or her kindred… (2:10).

Why didn’t Esther let on that she was from a Judean family? The text immediately informs us –
thereby creating more confusion:

…for Mordekhai had charged her that she should not tell.

The question now reverts to Mordekhai – why did he command her to keep her identity a secret?
This royal secrecy is reiterated later in the second chapter:

Esther did not make known her kindred nor her people; as Mordekhai had charged her (v. 20).

We now have two questions – why did Mordechai command her silence, and why is this behavior
(and antecedent command) repeated in the narrative?

II THE RISHONIM

The medieval commentators were bothered by her deliberate silence.

Rashi suggests that Mordekhai’s charge was intended to lessen Esther’s chances of being chosen
to fill Vashti’s seat:

“That she should not tell”: so that they will say that she is from a degraded family and will send
her away; for if they find out that she is from the family of King Sha’ul, they will hold on to her.

10
https://torah.org/torah-portion/mikra-5767-purim/

27
Rashi (and the Malbim, who adopts this approach) accepts the notion that he charged her with
silence to avoid being selected as a result of “family connections”.

This line of thinking is premised on an association between Esther and Sha’ul which, although
prominent in the Midrashic development of Esther, is nowhere to be found in the text. The premise
rests on the identification of “Kish” (2:5) as the father of Sha’ul – but if that is indeed the selfsame
“abu Sha’ul” intended in the verse, why jump back so many generations and avoid the “star”
himself? In any case, it is clear that the text didn’t intend to highlight her “Sha’ul-connection”;
introducing it into the thinking of Mordekhai seems forced.

A somewhat similar approach is put forth by the medieval Midrash Panim Aherim:

Why did Mordekhai command her not to tell? Because he was fleeing from any position of power
or greatness, Mordekhai thought: If she identifies me as the one who raised her, they will put me
in a position of honor.

Whereas Rashi points to the “yichus” helping Esther in her selection, this Midrash suggests that
once Esther would be crowned, her relationship with Mordekhai would catapult him into the
political limelight – a position he was loathe to embrace. Parenthetically, since this comment is
associated with the first (pre-selection) mention of her silence, it assumes that Mordekhai was
confident of Esther’s success at being chosen to fill Vashti’s seat.

The Targum Esther (c. 7th-8th century) raises another possibility – that Mordekhai was concerned
that Vashti’s demise may have been brought about as a result of her flaunting her genealogy. If
Esther reveals her royal (Shaulian) ancestry, it may irk the king into similar action.

Neither of these approaches, taken independently, resolves the problem of repetition. (The Targum
Sheni [c. 8th century] associates the second mention of Esther’s silence with the previous verse
that notes a second congregating of maidens. This enigmatic assemblage, after Esther is crowned,
is Midrashically explained as part of Ahashverosh’s attempt to get Esther to reveal her lineage.
The Targum Sheni notes that “in spite of the second congregating of the maidens, Esther continued
not to reveal…”)

According to Rash (and Malbim), once she has been chosen, why not identify herself? According
to the first citation from the Panim Aherim, her continued silence is understandable but
unnecessary to restate.

R. Avraham b. Ezra proposes three explanations for Esther’s silence.

1) Some say that Mordekhai acted incorrectly in commanding Esther not to reveal her nation,
since he was afraid that the king wouldn’t take her as queen since she was an exile.

2) Others say that through prophecy or a dream he knew that the salvation of Israel would
come through her

28
 2) What is proper in my eyes is that Mordekhai commanded her in order that she be able to
observe G-d’s Law so that she should not eat improperly slaughtered meat and that she
should observe the Sabbaths and the servants would not suspect anything. For if the matter
(her identity) would be known, perhaps the king would force her [to violate the law] or
would kill her because she was taken against her will.

Each of these explanations is difficult. The first is premised on two notions – that Mordekhai’s
intent was to promote Esther’s candidacy, something which not only has no support in the text but
which may be subtly contradicted by the description of Esther being “taken” by the king (more on
this below). The second premise is that Mordekhai erred in his judgment here – something that is
challenged by her presence in the palace at the necessary time to effect salvation (more on this,
too, later on).

The second approach is built on the first – that Esther’s silence was part of Mordekhai’s strategy
to help her be selected as queen. But Mordekhai’s statement, five years later, that “And who knows
whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (4:14) indicates a new
awareness on his part, not the fulfillment of a dream or vision.

Indeed, Ibn Ezra himself rejects both of these approaches (perhaps due to the challenges raised
here) and prefers the third.

His final approach is not without its obstacles. Although there are opinions in Haza”l that Esther
observed Shabbat, there is no indication in the text itself that Esther observed the law while in the
palace – indeed, her participation (at her own initiative) in the feasts and the surprise registered by
all assembled when she revealed her identity militates against her surreptitious observance.

Regardless of how one might defend any of these three explanations, the repetition between v. 10
and v. 20 remains an enigma. If Mordekhai was trying to promote her, why keep silent after being
selected? And if his concern was for her to be able to maintain her ritual practices, why mention
the silence before that was an issue – i.e. before her selection.

One might respond that in any case she would need to maintain the silence both before and after
(in the first two approaches, to make sure that she wouldn’t be “Vashtied”, and in the third, so that
she would be left alone even during her “spa” time), why mention it twice?

Levenson (Esther, OTL, p. 61) suggests that the two mentions of Esther’s silence serve a literary
purpose, framing the entire selection process and setting it off from the ongoing Mordekhai story.
He even notes a switch in terms from the first verse to the second:

et ‘Amah v’et Molad’tah (her nation nor her family – v. 10)

Molad’tah v’et ‘Amah (her family nor her nation – v. 20)

And suggests that this chiasmus gives the sense of “deliberate bracketing” i.e. that the author
deliberately framed the story by setting an A-B-story- B-A frame.

29
While this approach is somewhat attractive, if its sole intention was to bracket the “Esther-
selection” narrative, the first verse would have been better placed before v. 9 (the description of
how everyone in the palace took a shine to Esther). In addition, there is another difference in the
wording between the two verses which points us away from the direct association that Levenson
would have us read.

IV MEGILAT ESTHER AND LITERARY ALLUSIONS

In many of our essays, we have pointed to allusions in one text that help illuminate another. The
underlying assumption (which is a predicate of all Midrashic literature) is that the sensitive reader,
noting the analogous language, parallel phrasing etc. will draw the two narratives, personalities,
prophecies (and so on) together, finding information in each which will supplement the other.

In some cases, this helps us understand a particular character more deeply and assay the evaluation
of the text as to his behavior. An example of this comparison is the many comparisons between
Gid’on and Ya’akov (which must wait for another opportunity). In other cases, personalities are
drawn together so that we may see the greatness of one over the other – case in point, Mosheh and
Yehoshua.

While these literary allusions are found throughout T’nakh, they are most pronounced in Megilat
Esther, for two reasons.

Megilat Esther is one of the latest books of T’nakh, likely completed no earlier than the fourth
century BCE (see Esther 9:28). As such, there is nearly a thousand years of T’nakh on which to
draw, including many heroes and villains to whom the members of our “cast” can be compared
and against whom they can be contrasted.

The second reason for the proliferation of allusions in Esther is its very nature. Ibn Ezra suggests
that the reason that God’s Name was omitted from the text was to prevent the pagans who would
also be reading it from substituting idolatrous names for haKadosh Barukh Hu. In other words, it
was understood that this text would also be read by other nations (as at least part of it was translated
into all the languages of the Empire – see 10:2). As such, the Megilah contains many allusions that
only a sensitive Jewish reader would pick up. The Megilah might be described as a precious stone
encased in a somewhat pedestrian setting – the more that the stone is removed from the setting,
the more beautifully it shines. References to earlier T’nakh characters highlight the heroism of our
protagonists – and emphasize the dastardly nature of our enemies – in ways that someone not
conversant with T’nakh would never see.

In earlier essays, we have pointed out that the terms used in the detailed description of
Ahashverosh’s splendor and wealth utilizes terms which evoke the Mishkan and Mikdash, serving
as a subtle but powerful critique of the Jews who remained in Babylonia after Cyrus’
announcement that “all who have God with them should go up” to rebuild the Mikdash and resettle
Judea.

In this essay, we will focus our attention on events in the T’nakh that are alluded to in Chapter 2.

30
V MEGILAT ESTHER AND THE PATRIARCHAL EGYPTIAN
NARRATIVES

When we speak about the Sippurei haAvot b’Mitzrayim – (the patriarchal narratives in Egypt),
there are really three periods that are under discussion. First and foremost is the period immediately
preceding the Exodus; preceding that is the Yoseph cycle of stories. The reason that we distinguish
between these two is not only the bibliographic placement (B’resheet vs. Sh’mot), but also the
thematic focus. Whereas the Yoseph stories are oriented to the fortunes of a small family, the
Sh’mot narrative describes the travails and eventual salvation of a nation.

The Yoseph narratives share a number of parallels with the Esther story. The story of an exile from
Israel, eventually rising to the position of Mishneh laMelekh (second to the king) in a foreign court,
receiving the ring of the king and riding in his chariot – while still beloved only to “most of his
brethren” – all point to a clear analogy between Yoseph and Mordekhai.

The critical difference lies at the end of each story. Yoseph abjures his brothers to anticipate God’s
redemption that will provide the opportunity to return to the Land. Mordekhai says nothing of the
sort – indeed, he is introduced to us as an exile (2:5) and we never again hear about the Land or
Yerushalayim. (see Rosenthal’s article in ZAW 15 pp. 278-284).

There is yet another patriarchal narrative in Egypt – Avraham’s brief sojourn in the land of the
Pharaoh (B’resheet 12:10-20).

Yair Zakovitch (Mikra’ot b’Eretz haMar’ot pp. 65-67) notes that the phrase: VaTukah ha’ishah
beit Par’oh (and the woman was taken to the house of Pharaoh – B’resheet 12:15) is a nearly
perfect parallel with VaTilakah Esther el beit haMelekh (and Esther was taken to the house of the
king – Esther 2:8). Indeed, the “Pu’al” form (vaTukah) is typical of early T’nakh language; in later
T’nakh Hebrew (2nd Temple period), this form is replaced by the Niph’al (vaTilakah). Besides
these verses, there are a high number of parallels, both linguistic and thematic, which support the
notion that the author of Esther was deliberately associating the heroine to our mother, Sarah.
(Surprisingly, Zakovitch omits one clear allusion to the Sarah story – the identification of 127
provinces under the rule of Ahashverosh which evokes Sarah’s 127 years [B’resheet 23:1]. Note
that R. Akiva did pick up on this association – see Esther Rabbah 1:8].)

Zakovitch notes 10 parallels:

1) Both stories involve an Ivri/Yehudi who is in exile (Avraham: Mordekhai)

2) The exile is accompanied by a female relative (Sarah: Esther)
3) Just as Sarah is described as Y’fat Mar’eh (attractive – 12:11), so is Esther Y’fat to’ar v’tovat
Mar’eh (2:7)
4) The taking of each to the king’s palace is presented in similar language, as above.
5) In both cases, the woman hides her identity as per the command of the exile (B’resheet 12:12:
Esther 2:10)
6) The woman is taken to be the wife of the king (B’resheet 12:19: Esther 2:17)
7) In each case, there is a threat against the entire nation (Avraham’s death – see B’resheet 12:12
– would be the end of the nascent nation)

31
8) Through the merit of the woman the man hopes to save the entire nation (Sarah’s lie will save
Avraham: Esther will approach the king to annul the decree)
9) The king learns of the relationship between the exile and the woman (Pharaoh learns through a
dream: Esther reveals her relationship to Mordekhai)
10) Those who would harm the exile are harmed (the plagues against the house of Pharaoh: the
victory of the Jews in Persia)
Zakovitch is quick to point out several significant differences between the two stories which serve
to underscore part of the message of the Megilah – of course, we wouldn’t recognize these
contrasts without the many parallels outlined above:
1) Sarah does not become the queen
2) Avraham and Sarah return to the Land
3) Sarah’s lie is outright, whereas Esther’s silence is, at most, deceptive
4) Avraham’s concern is only for himself; whereas Mordekhai worries about the entire nation
5) In B’resheet, the confrontation is with the king himself
6) Avraham leaves Egypt with great wealth; the Jews assiduously avoid taking from the loot of the
war against the Persians. (9:10,15)

Perhaps this is why R. Me’ir interpreted Esther’s relationship with Mordekhai as more than
adoptive daughter:

And when her father and mother died, Mordecai took her for his own daughter.

A Tanna taught in the name of R. Meir: Read not ‘for a daughter’ [le-bat], but ‘for a house’ [le-
bayit – i.e. a wife]. (BT Megilah 13a)

This exposition further strengthens the parallels between the two stories, highlighting the recurring
theme of the dangers inherent in entanglement with the foreign court while in exile.

VI THE THIRD EGYPT-PERSIA CONNECTION

Avraham Shama’, in the wonderful collection of articles published in memory of Dasi Rabinowitz
z”l (Hadassah Hi Esther, Alon Shvut, 1997), points to yet another stage of the patriarchal narratives
in Egypt which recurs, thematically and linguistically, in Esther.

When the infant Mosheh was cast into the water, we learn of a particular interest paid to his welfare
by sister Miriam:

And his sister stood far away, l’Dei’ah mah ye’aseh lo (to know what would be done to
him.) (Sh’mot 2:4)

Mordekhai’s concern for Esther echoes this image:

And Mordekhai walked every day before the court of the harem, laDa’at et Sh’lom Esther (to know
how Esther was), uMah ye’aseh bah (and what was done to her.) (Esther 2:11)

Besides the clear linguistic parallels, these two are substantively analogous:

32
1) In both cases, there seems to be a near-resignation as to the fate of the “watched” one;
2) In both cases, the “watched one” was taken to the king’s palace and his/her fate was unclear for
a while;
3) In both cases, compassion/admiration was stirred in the hearts of the onlookers (Pharaoh’s
daughter: the courtiers)
4) In both cases, the entry into the palace was the first glimmer of salvation for the people.
In other words, we have to see Mordekhai’s watching of Esther – and his command for her to be
silent regarding her lineage and their relationship – as a function of a fatherly-type concern.
Shama’ points us to an interesting parallel between the two mentions of her silence which takes us
several steps closer to a solution:

(v. 10-11): Esther had not revealed her people nor her family; for Mordekhai had charged her
that she should not tell. And Mordekhai walked every day before the court of the harem, to know
how Esther was, and what was done to her. ( umah ye’aseh bah)
(v. 20): Esther did not reveal her family nor her people; as Mordekhai had charged her; for Esther
did the command of Mordekhai, ( …Esther ‘Osah) as when she was brought up with him.

Both mentions are followed by the behavior of one of the family members (Esther/Mordekhai) –
in the first, Mordekhai’s observation of Esther from outside the court, in the second, Esther’s
fidelity to Mordekhai’s commands. Both of these “activities” are described using the verb ‘Asoh
(as noted).

In the first mention, the emphasis is on the actions towards Esther; in the second, it is the behavior
of Esther as reflecting Mordekhai’s instructions.
There are two other distinctions between the two mentions of Esther’s silence. In the first, she is
described as lo Higidah – in the past imperfect (“she did not reveal”); in the second ein Esther
Magedet – in the ongoing present (“she would not tell”). In addition, as noted above (citing
Levenson), the text inverts the order of what she kept secret; in the first, pre-selection silence, she
is described as not talking about her people nor her family; in the second, her family is mentioned
before her people.

VII RESOLVING ESTHER’S “DOUBLED” SILENCE

We can now revisit our original question – why Esther was silent (i.e. why did Mordekhai
command her so) and why is it mentioned twice.

All of the approaches raised before understood her silence to be ongoing and motivated by one
consistent concern. The change in grammar and the order of her discretion suggest two
independent motives behind Mordekhai’s command(s). Shama’ suggests that a close look at the
context and wording behind each command – along with what we know from the rest of the
Megilah – provides a clear explanation for each charge of Mordekhai. The rest of our essay is built
on his insightful explanation.

When Esther was taken – forcibly (as we saw earlier via the parallel with Sarah) – Mordekhai’s
main concern was for her welfare, as a foreigner, exile and Jewess. The rest of the Megilah points

33
us to a great proliferation of either Judeaophobia or simple xenophobia throughout the kingdom;
how else could Haman count on sufficient support in the Empire to destroy the Jews in one day?
A Jewess in the palace undoubtedly was at risk – perhaps for her life – would her identity become
known. This is why the text in v. 10 reports that lo Higidah Esther – she didn’t tell (at a particular
time, when asked) – this was a temporary situation, born of an inevitably temporary circumstance
(waiting for the results of the contest). This is also why the immediate action mentioned is
Mordekhai’s daily observation to see what they would do to her. This is also why he commanded
her chiefly to keep her Jewish identity ( ‘Amah*) a secret, and only secondarily her family.

Once she was chosen, Mordekhai, as a believing and knowledgeable Jew, must have seen the hand
of God and associated her rise to that of Yoseph (the only earlier model of success in the foreign
court). Just as Yoseph saw himself as sent to the court in order to save his brothers (B’resheet
50:20), similarly Mordekhai must have sensed that Esther’s rise to prominence was for a greater
purpose which was not yet clear.

Mordekhai was known, publicly and in the court, to be a Jew. Note that when Mordekhai reports
to the king, through Esther, about the plot cooked up by Bigtan and Teresh, it is recorded in the
king’s chronicles as an act of “Mordekhai haY’hudi” (see 6:2,10). Mordekhai evidently felt that
whatever God’s purpose in promoting Esther to the monarchy might be, he would need to guide
her from outside.

That Mordekhai was known to have some sort of role as advisor to the queen was clear to all – it
was Esther who reported, in his name, about the plot. In addition, Esther freely sent an agent to
confer with him in front of the palace. For him to continue to charge and direct her, their familial
ties would need to be discrete. If people were under the impression that he was appointed to her
stewardship because of his insight, wisdom, experience and so on, his position would be fairly
secure and unquestioned. If, on the other hand, people were to know of their blood ties, the
assumption of nepotism would delegitimate him and he might be removed from his necessary
perch.

Thus, in the second mention of her silence, the focus is on her fidelity to Mordekhai’s every
command – and she is described as ein Magedet – implying ongoing, permanent behavior. This
also explains the switched priorities – here, the main issue is keeping her moledet (family) a secret,
thus it is placed before ‘Am (people).

I would like to suggest an alternative (or additional) explanation for Mordekhai’s second
command. Besides his role as her advisor (which I’m not nearly as convinced of), Mordekhai may
have felt that there was a value in having a “mole”, someone under “deep cover” in the palace.
Unlike Yoseph’s Egypt, the Persian Empire clearly had a great share of Jew-haters (as above).
Mordekhai may have felt that the time would come when Esther would play a critical role in
helping/saving the Jews. That could be effective only if her identity would be kept secret until the
critical juncture. Then, with proper timing, her revelation would stymie any attempt at hurting her
people. In order to do so, Mordekhai, who was known as a court Jew, would have to distance
himself from Esther and she would have to be silent about their relationship in order to keep her
own identity a secret until the right time.

34
This is the gist of Mordekhai’s compelling argument to Esther:

Perhaps it is for a time such as this that you were made a monarch.

VIII POSTSCRIPT

Following the explanation presented above, we find that both the circumstances of the terrible
threat of Haman and the wondrous salvation which we celebrate on Purim are buried within the
details of Mordekhai’s commands to Esther to be silent.

His first command, out of concern for her safety, reflects the terrifying potential for anti-Semitism
within the court; his second command carries the seeds of salvation, placing our heroine in
position, years later, to stop that hatred from achieving its dastardly ends.

The Coronation of Queen Esther, from the 1617 Scroll of Esther from
Ferrara, Italy.

The Aroma of Purim

35
Moshe-Mordechai van Zuiden writes:11

The Talmud tells us that the name Mordechai means: pleasant smell. Queen Esther had a second
name: Hadass-ah (Esther 2:7). Hadass is Hebrew for myrtle, famous for its nice scent. Esther is
related to lehastir – to hide – in the Book of Esther G-d’s hand is hidden. (The Talmud, Chullin
139b, relates that G-d is hidden here as Source of the Salvation, based on Deuteronomy 31:18,
that however uses the same concealment to say that Punishment comes when G-d’s Presence
seems hidden to us.)

Even the seemingly lowest of the righteous in the Book of Esther has smell in his
name: Harbonah (Esther 7:9) – the same letters as Reiach Boneh – the scent of building [of the
gallows]. The Midrash (Esther Rabbah 10:9) says that he was the Prophet Elijah.

Why would the names of the main Jewish players in the Purim story be connected to great smell?

The above mentioned myrtle is a symbol for the righteous (Talmud, Megilla 13a based
on Zechariah 1:8). (Just seeing them makes you want to be like them.)
Sinning may involve all the senses but smelling. Smell is this untouched pure place from where
we connect with the world around us and from where repentance may be build (daily prayers, Yom
Kippur). It’s the least material sense, the most esoteric, but the supernatural of it is still hidden –
the story of Purim.

G-d likes the odor of our sacrifices and there is even one (the incense) that is all about smell,
but human olfaction is hardly mentioned in the Torah or the whole of the Hebrew Bible.

Eve saw that the forbidden tree was tasty (Genesis 3:6). Most of our taste is given by our nose
(that’s why we don’t taste much when our nose is stuffed), so this “seeing” was referring to
smelling. (The Torah did not want to openly connect something so holy to sinning. We should
guard our eyes more than our nose.)

In Tenach, smelling was mostly popular around the first Jews. Isaac smelled the difference
between his two sons. Or, so he thought (Genesis 27:27). Jacob always had his nose in a
book (Genesis 25:27), but he became a worthy leader by stepping into the world, waking up and
smelling the coffee. His greatest love was for a woman named Rachel (Genesis 29:18), a
contraction for: G-dly smell (Reiach Ei’l). (Of course he did not kiss her at first sight (Genesis
29:11); he kissed her scent!) The leader of his twelve sons, her firstborn son Joseph, went down
to sort out Egypt in a spice caravan (Genesis 37:25). The Egyptians were disgusted with Jewish
food (Genesis 43:32). That’s most of it by far.

I don’t want to bloody anyone’s nose, but wicked people seem jealous of Jews’ propensity for
virtue (we put their noses out of joint), and so depict us with big noses, trying to make fun of our
great predilection for righteousness.

11
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-aroma-of-purim/

36
When people have drunk a bit too much alcohol, they are called in Hebrew mevusam: intoxicated,
quite similar (Samech – Seen) to the Hebrew letters in word bosem, parfume.

In short: Follow your nose and have a Happy Purim!

WAS THE QUEEN REALLY GREEN?

Rabbi Eli Reisman writes:12

The common practice today is to use esrogim that have begun to turn yellow even if they are still
mostly green. This is not universally accepted; some such as the Brisker rabbanim insist on fully
yellow esrogim. In this essay we will explore some of the elements of a centuries-old dispute that
continues to this very day.

The Problem with Green Esrogim In the third chapter of Maseches Succah the Mishnah discusses
the status of a green-colored esrog with characteristic brevity: “If it is green like a leek [hayarok
kikarsi] — Rabi Meir says it is kosher and Rabi Yehuda says it is pasul.” The halachah follows
Rabi Yehuda and at first glance things look pretty bleak for the green esrogim.

But the Gemara teases out a nuance regarding the problem with green esrogim. The esrog is
described in the Torah as pri eitz hadar and we derive from the word hadar that it must be free of

12
https://mishpacha.com/contributors/rabbi-eli-reisman/

37
certain aesthetic blemishes. Thus an esrog that is totally dried out or that has certain discolorations
is pasul. The initial assumption of the Gemara is that greenness too is an absence of hadar.

The Gemara concludes however that this cannot be Rabi Yehuda’s reasoning. Elsewhere we find
that Rabi Yehuda unlike his colleagues permits using a dried-out esrog for he interprets the word
hadar differently and does not require that the esrog be beautiful. (The halachah does not follow
Rabi Yehuda on this point and we require hadar for our arba minim.) Rather Rabi Yehuda’s reason
is that a green esrog is assumed be immature (lo gamar peira).

Tosafos’s Leniency

Tosafos introduce a considerable leniency based on this explanation namely that if one has an
esrog that is currently green but will turn yellow over time it would be kosher even according to
Rabi Yehuda since it clearly was not picked too early to ripen. This leniency is adopted by the
Rosh the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch.

As understood by the Taz and Magen Avraham this allows the use of such an esrog even before it
turns yellow so long as one knows that it will do so. We only need to know that it stayed on the
tree long enough to be able to turn yellow later.

The Vilna Gaon Chayei Adam Shulchan Aruch Harav and Elya Rabbah agree with this
interpretation and Mishnah Berurah incorporates it into his commentary albeit with one caveat:
Based on a ruling of Maharil mentioned in Magen Avraham Mishnah Berurah rules that one should
only use a green esrog if it has already begun to turn yellow for otherwise one can’t be certain that
it will in fact change color in the future.

The Bach’s Objection

The Bach raises an objection to this leniency. The Gemara clearly assumed from the outset that a
green esrog lacked hadar and only invoked the gamar peira reason to explain why Rabi Yehuda
who does not require hadar nevertheless considers green invalid. Since we unlike Rabi Yehuda
rule that an esrog must be hadar we have no reason to disregard the initial assumption that a green
esrog lacks this qualification.

Hence argues the Bach a green esrog is pasul for two reasons: it is not hadar and it may be
immature. Even if we know it will turn yellow later Tosafos’s leniency as understood by the
aforementioned authorities would only cover the second reason but the first problem — hadar —
would still apply until it finishes turning yellow. This stringency is endorsed by Bikkurei Yaakov
Beis Meir Shiyarei Knesses Hagedolah Olas Shabbos and Mishkenos Yaakov.

A Further Stringency

What about the Tosafos we mentioned above which allows the use of an esrog that will change
color after picking? Several of the aforementioned authorities adopt a different interpretation of

38
the Tosafos and argue that Tosafos only mean to allow the use of a green esrog after it turns yellow
not before.

Obviously once an esrog turns yellow there will be no hadar issue as hadar is dependent solely on
its status at the time of use. Tosafos according to this view wish to clarify further that the problem
of gamar peira also resolves itself once the esrog changes color even though that at the time of
picking it was unfinished. In other words one might have argued that an esrog picked before
ripening on the tree is permanently disqualified and Tosafos are dispelling such an assertion.

By reading Tosafos this way these Acharonim are arguing with the Taz and Magen Avraham on
two counts: 1) They hold that green lacks hadar and that 2) a yellow coloration is per se required
for the esrog to be considered gamar peira.

The Story So Far

To sum up we have learned thus far that:

(1) Although the Mishnah flatly disqualifies green esrogim many poskim understand the sole
problem to be the assumption of immaturity. They accept any esrog that is known to be mature
enough to turn yellow in the future.

(2) The Bach objected because he argues that a green esrog lacks hadar and thus remains pasul
until it turns yellow.

(3) A stringent reading of Tosafos alleges that the maturity problem too applies until final ripening.

39
Enter the Zohar

Several Acharonim point out that the Zohar gives seems to consider green not only kosher but
optimal: “If it is yarok it is preferable just as Esther was yerakrokes.”

The idea that Esther had a tinge of yarok is mentioned in the Gemara: “Esther was yerakrokes yet
a thread of grace was strung upon her.” But only the Zohar draws a connection between her color
and the esrog. What is the connection between Esther and the esrog? Bikkurei Yaakov hints that
they share some secret connection (“meramzim l’sod echad”) but declines to reveal said secret.
At any rate this Zohar tells us that green is not only acceptable but preferable. How are we to
reconcile this with the established halachah?

Rav Yaakov Emden[1] understands the Zohar as referring to an esrog that is now green, but will
later turn yellow. Such an esrog is kosher according to the first interpretation of Tosafos we
mentioned above. Even according to this explanation, the Zohar still seems at odds with the
Tosafos and Shulchan Aruch, who only consider green acceptable, not preferable, and certainly
with the Bach et al, who consider green absolutely pasul.

Yarok

There is another possible reading of this Zohar that may be in line with the accepted halachah,
which hinges on the translation of the word yarok. Modern Hebrew uses the term yarok for
green, kachol for blue, and tzahov for yellow. In Talmudic terminology, however, the single
word yarok covers the span from yellow, through green, and into blue.[2]

Therefore, when the term yarok appears in halachah, it is necessary to specify which yarok we
mean. In Yoreh Deiah 188:1, for example, where we learn that secretions of yarok do not render
one a niddah, the Shulchan Aruch elaborates: “yarok like wax or gold [i.e., yellow] and
certainly yarok like grass or leeks [i.e., green]; and similarly the color called ‘blau’ in German is
included in yarok.” In the laws of treifos, regarding the examination of lungs in animals, Sifsei
Kohein[3] comments that “the yarok called blau and grün are kosher but
[4]
the yarok called gel is treif.”

Tosafos tell us[5] that Chazal use the word yarok without modification when they wish to describe
the color yellow. If they wish to identify something green, they use the phrase yarok kikarsi. So
even though yarok kikarsi ultra-literally means “yarok as a leek,” an accurate paraphrase
translation would be simply “green,” no more and no less.

In the case of the mishnah we cited in the outset, although it literally reads “green as a leek,” it
isn’t necessarily referring to a specific shade of green. It just means to say an esrog that is green,
rather than yellow.

Was Esther Green or Yellow?

In light of Tosafos’s statement that yarok on its own means yellow, let us reread that Zohar: “If it
is yarok it is preferable, just as Esther was yerakrokes.” Could it be that the Zohar is telling us

40
that yellow, not green, is preferable, and that Esther’s yerakrokes hue was not a green tinge, but a
yellow one?

This reading — that the Zohar’s yarok means yellow — is adopted by the Bikkurei Yaakov, Vilna
Gaon,[6] and Mishkenos Yaakov. The latter two point out that while it is normal for people to appear
yellowish due to various medical conditions, a green tinge is totally unnatural. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that the description of Esther as yerakrokes refers to a yellowish tinge.

If the Zohar is telling us to prefer yellow esrogim, it is consistent with our halachah. After all,
everyone agrees that yellow is the best color for an esrog, and the Zohar is simply adding a
mystical dimension to the same law, viz. that kabbalistically we wish the esrog to resemble
Esther’s yellowness.

We pointed out earlier that if the Zohar meant that green esrogim are preferable, it would be
irreconcilable with the Bach’s view that they must be yellow. Yet, Rav Shlomo Kluger[7] writes,
even if the Zohar means to say that yellow is merely better, that clearly implies that green is at
least kosher, which still contradicts the Bach.

Still, this is not a refutation of the Bach’s stance, since in general we do not base halachah on
Kabbalistic sources where they are in conflict with the revealed Torah. Furthermore, since the
kashrus of a green esrog is a dispute among the Tannaim, it is possible that Rabi Shimon bar
Yochai held like Rabi Meir, and the halachah would still follow Rabi Yehuda.

Esther and Hadassim

As we noted above, Esther is more commonly associated with hadassim. After all, Hadassah was
her other name, as is clearly stated in Megillas Esther.[8]

Hadassim are green, of course. Should this indicate that the term yerakrokes used to describe
Esther connotes a greenish tinge?

Let’s see. The Gemara[9] reads as follows:

The Gemara never explicitly compares her coloration to the green color of a myrtle branch, yet the
context does imply that the yerakrokes described here is an explanation of her nickname Hadassah.
It is entirely possible to understand this Gemara as meaning that Esther was yellow and not green.

41
Rashi, however, does clearly make the connection. He comments here on Rabi Yehoshua’s
statement that Esther was yerakrokes: “Like a hadassah.” This places Rashi firmly on the side of
those who understand Esther’s yerakrokes to mean a greenish color.[10]

Which Is the Real Tzaddik?

The question of whether to compare Queen Esther to the esrog or the hadas may be related to
another conundrum. We’ve quoted the Gemara above that states that “righteous people are
called hadassim.” This seems contrary to a famous midrash,[11] which characterizes the arba
minim:

In this Midrash the hadas is described as representing a lower spiritual level than the esrog. I do
not know how to reconcile this with the Gemara, which tells us that tzaddikim are compared
to hadassim.

One is tempted to speculate that this may be the root of the dispute between Rabi Meir and Rabi
Yehoshua ben Karcha in the gemara we cited above. Perhaps Rabi Meir held that the hadas is the
tzaddik, and therefore associated Esther with it rather than the esrog, whereas Rabi Yehoshua ben
Karcha (and the Zohar[12]) held like the midrash that the esrog represents righteousness, and
therefore drew attention to her yellow tinge, which resembles the esrog. It does seem that this may
hold the key to the question of whether to compare Queen Esther to an esrog or a hadas, and by
extension to the mystery of whether the queen was really green.

[1]
Mor U’Ketziah to 648:21.

[2]
Tosafos discuss this in several places. See Succah31b s.v. hayarok, Chullin47b s.v. ela, Niddah19b s.v hayarok.

[3]
Yoreh Deiah 38:6. It should be noted that the Shulchan Aruch here (38:4) does use the term kachol for some shade of blau (as
the Rema comments there). The context implies that it was inky dark, very close to black, and therefore am not certain whether the
color described by the Shulchan Aruch as kachol is identical to the color the Sifsei Kohein calls “the yarok called blau.”

[4]
Yellow (gelb in contemporary German).

[5]
Niddah ibid.

[6]
Commentary to Tikkunei Zohar ad loc.

[7]
Glosses to Shulchan Aruch 648:21.

42
[8]
2:7

[9]
Megillah13a.

My friend E.L. pointed out that both protagonists of our original mishnah in Succah, Rabi Meir and Rabi Yehuda, appear in
this baraisa, and Rabi Meir compares Esther to a hadas while according to Rabi Yehuda that was simply her given name. One
can’t help but wonder if there is some connection between this and their dispute about the kashrus of a green esrog.

[10]
This is consistent with Rashi in Chullin47b, where the Gemara describes a baby not ready for his bris as yarok. While the Vilna
Gaon (and likely Tosafos as well) would read this as a reference to a yellowish tinge, Rashi explains yarok to mean “like grass” —
i.e., green. The Vilna Gaon categorically states in his commentary to the Tikkunei Zohar that “green is not a color that occurs in
people,” and therefore interprets Esther’s color to be yellowish. Rashi, in both places we’ve cited, appears to disagree.

[11]
Midrash Rabbah Vayikra 30:12.

[12] This explanation only works according to those who read the Gemara and the Zohar’s term yerakrokes as yellow rather than
green.

43
 Some Physiological Aspects of Queen Esther
Dr. Harvey Babich writes:13

Although not explicit in Megillas Esther, the events of Purim center between the destruction of the
First Beis HaMikdosh and the building of the Second Beis HaMikdosh, 70 years later.
Nebuchadnezzar founded the Babylonian Empire in 3318 and one year thereafter made Judah a
vassal state of Babylon. In 3327, he exiled Yekhoniah, king of Judah, along with 10,000 leading
Jewish scholars, many of whom settled in Babylon. A positive aspect was that these exiled
scholars, which included Mordechai, built a Jewish infrastructure of yeshivas in Babylon. The year

13
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/755548/dr-harvey-babich/some-physiological-aspects-of-queen-esther/

44
3338 was pivotal in Jewish history, as the armies of Nebuchadnezzar marched on, and destroyed,
the First Beis HaMikdosh, exiling the remaining Jews. Jeremiah previously prophesized, “And this
whole land [of Israel] shall be a ruin, and a waste, and these nations [i.e., the tribes of Israel] shall
serve the king of Babylon 70 years. And it will come to pass, when the 70 years are fulfilled, that
I will punish the king of Babylon”(Jeremiah 25:11-12). Another of his prophesies, “For thus
said HaShem: After 70 years for Babylonia have been completed, I will attend to you and I will
fulfill for you My favorable promise - to return you to this place” (Jeremiah 26:10). “In the
polytheistic world, the G-d of Israel had a reputation. He had to be reckoned with and, therefore
the rulers kept up with Jewish beliefs and took Jewish prophets and their prophesies seriously”
(Spiro, 2010). The issue faced by the non-Jewish rulers was from what point to calculate the 70
years.

After a reign of 45 years, Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by Evil Merodach, who reigned for 23
years, to be followed by Belshazzar. Cognizant of Jeremiah’s prophecy, Belshazzar calculated
(albeit, incorrectly) the passage of time since the destruction of the First Beis HaMikdosh. Not
seeing the redemption of the Jewish people and assuming that HaShem reneged on His promise,
Belshazzar made a fatal celebration, using the stolen Temple vessels at his banquet. That night he
died, co-murdered by Cyrus the Persian and Darius I, the Mede. The death of Belshazzar marked
the end of the Babylonian empire; Vashti, Evil Merodach’s daughter (Talmud Megillah 10b),
survived the invasion. To seal their allegiance, Cyrus married the daughter of Darius I, producing
a son, Achashverosh. Darius I had taken Vashti to Persia and eventually gave her as an 18 year old
bride to his grandson Achashverosh, son of Cyrus. Darius I died after a brief rule and Cyrus
assumed the leadership both of Medea and Persia, establishing the new Persian Empire. Being
somewhat sympathetic to the Jewish plight, in 3390 he allowed the rebuilding of the Second Beis
HaMikdosh and permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem. Only 42,000 return, leaving millions in
Babylon. Cyrus moved the Persian capital to Shushan, taking Mordechai with him. Within two
years, because of intervention by the Samaritans, Cyrus halted Jewish migration to Jerusalem but
still allowed the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdosh (MeAm Lo’ez).

Achashverosh succeeded his father Cyrus and assumed rulership of Persia in 3392; his wife,
Vashti, was the granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar. An early edict was the cessation of the
rebuilding of the Second Beis HaMikdosh. Also aware of Jeremiah’s prophecy, Achashverosh
calculated the 70 year period, but as with Belshazzar, he erred. Unaware of his miscalculation, in
3394 Achashverosh commenced a 180-day banquet, also using the stolen Temple vessels. This is
the point at which Megillas Esther begins, with the initial chapter noting a marital conflict between
Achashverosh and Vashti, with Vashti losing the argument (as, well as her life in the third year of
his reign). Achashverosh remained a widow for four subsequent years and needing a new soul
mate, he instituted an international beauty contest, with the most favorable contestant destined to
be his queen (beginning of chapter 2). In the seventh year of his reign, in Teves, 3399, Esther
married Achashverosh and one year later, she gave birth to Darius II (MeAm Lo’ez).

Mordechai and, thereafter, Esther, are first introduced in the second chapter of the Megillah. Esther
is an enigma, with much disagreement among the commentators on various aspects of her life. To

45
my knowledge, the only agreed upon facts are that Esther was a righteous woman, a prophetess,
and of medium height (Talmud Megillah 13a, 14a). The controversies commence with her birth
name and continue until the birth of her son, Darius II. Esther’s father died after her conception
and her mother died in childbirth; she was reared by Mordechai, who was either her uncle (Ibn
Ezra to Esther 8:1) or her cousin (Esther 2:7) and presumably was the one who named her.

“He (i.e., Mordechai) had raised Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter; she had neither
father nor mother and she was of beautiful form and fair appearance. When her father and mother
died, Mordechai adopted her as his daughter” (Esther 2:7). There are two distinct opinions
concerning the actual relationship between Mordechai and Esther (Talmud Megillah 13a).
According to one opinion, Esther, an orphan, remain a ward of Mordechai - he raised her, sustained
her, and taught her Torah. Either, because of her beauty (Ibn Ezra, Esther 2:7) or her righteousness
(Rav A.Y. Sorotzkin in Renas Yitzchak), Mordechai desired to marry her. This marriage, however,
never took place either because she was abducted by the king’s officiers prior to their marriage or
because Mordechai refrained from marrying Esther as he had knowledge that HaShem would bring
a miracle through Esther, requiring her marriage to king Achashverosh (MeAm Lo’ez). According
to the other thought, Mordechai and Esther did marry, but in private. As this marriage was
unknown to the public, it appeared to the outside world that “Mordechai adopted her as his
daughter.” Although aware of her eventual abduction, Mordechai did not divorce Esther, as this
would have publicized their marriage (Rav Dovid Cohen in Ohel Dovid, volume 3).

There is some controversy regarding Esther’s birth name (Talmud Megillah 13a). According to R’
Meir her birth name was Esther, but she was called Hadassah, as righteous people are designated
as hadas (Zechariah 1:8), i.e., the myrtle. Regarding the name Hadassah, Ben Azzai conjectured
that Esther was neither tall nor short in stature, but was of average height, like the myrtle tree. R’
Yehoshua ben Korchah suggested that Esther’s skin complexion was similar to that of a myrtle
leaf, greenish in hue. However, there is also a thought that Esther’s skin complexion may have
resembled a myrtle leaf that was dried by the sun. When a leaf ages, the dominant green pigment,
chlorophyll, is degraded, to reveal the hidden orange-yellow carotenoid pigments, previously
masked by the chlorophyll. According to this theory, Esther’s skin complexion was yellow-orange,
like the yolk of an egg (Likutei HaMaR’ick; Deutsch, 2002). Esther may have had neonatal
jaundice, characterized by a yellowing of the skin and other tissues of newborn infant. Neonatal
jaundice results either from the degradation of fetal hemoglobin as it is replaced by adult
hemoglobin or by immature liver metabolic processes which are unable to conjugate and excrete
bilirubin as quickly as in an adult. The result is an accumulation of bilirubin in the blood, leading
to the yellowing of the skin; a bilirubin level of more than 5 mg/dL manifests clinical neonatal
jaundice (Wikipedia). Neonatal jaundice may have foreshadowed Esther’s condition of chlorosis,
manifested when she was taken into the king’s harem (Hoenig, 2006).

Later in life, Esther wins the international beauty contest. The obvious question is how could King
Achashverosh be so attracted to a woman with a greenish or yellow-orange skin
complexion? Anticipating this question, the Talmud (Megillah 13a, 15a) noted that Esther was

46
“endowed with a touch of grace,” in that HaShem created an illusion, so that she appeared beautiful
both to King Achashverosh and to the peoples of the 127 nations over which he ruled.

Apparently, green was the perfect color for Esther’s complexion. Specific colors induce distinct
psychological behaviors and green is a color that appeals to most people. Green, the color seen
most in the natural world, soothes, alleviates depression, nervousness, and anxiety, relaxes
physically and mentally, and evokes a feeling of harmony (Smith, 2010). It is not surprising that
in most educational institutions, the traditional blackboard was replaced with the green board.
Rebbetzein Tziporah Heller (2009) noted that green is a combination of the two primary colors,
blue and yellow, with blue symbolizing coolness and yellow symbolizing warmth . Esther’s inner
strength was a composite of a fiery sun-like passion with the cooling characteristic of water,
allowing her to connect with all peoples. “Her ‘greenness’ was the spiritual symbol of humility,
responsiveness, and sensitivity.”

There is another opinion that her birth name was Hadassah and Esther was added later.

Rav Yehudah noted that the Hebrew word for concealment is hastir, which is similar to Esther,
who concealed her Jewish origins from King Achashverosh. Rav Nechemiah suggested that the
name Esther was derived from the Aramaic istahar, or “moon,” as she was as beautiful as the
moon (Talmud Megillah 13a) or from the Greek Estera, for the planet Venus (Yalkut Shimoni). In
the Talmud (Megillah 15a) a baraisa made note of four women of exceptional beauty, which
included Sorah, Rachav, Avigayil, and Esther. However, according to the opinion that Esther’s
complexion was green, Esther was replaced with Vashti.

Esther is abducted and taken to the king’s harem (Esther 2:8). Although the king’s officers
searched for beautiful, never-married, young women, Esther was included in this round up of
beauty pageant contestants. In addition to possibly being of green complexion and married, her
age at this point was estimated at either 40 years (according to Rav), 75 years (the view of the
Rabbis), or 80 years (opinion of Shmuel) (Yalkut Shimoni). Obviously, her abduction and final
selection as the winner of the pageant clearly is indicative of the “Hand of HaShem.”

Once in the king’s palace, Esther immediately found favor with Hegai, the guardian of the harem.
“…and the girl pleased him and she obtained his kindness; he hurriedly prepared her cosmetics
and her allowance of delicacies to present her” (Esther 2:9). Three thoughts are presented
regarding her diet (Talmud Megillah 13a). Rav suggested that Hegai gave Esther kosher food.
However, if, as yet, Esther did not reveal her religion, why was she provided with a kosher diet?
Ben Yehoyada explained that it was well known that Esther, a foundling of unknown origin, was
raised in Mordechai’s home. As such, it was natural for Esther to request kosher food, as that was
what she was accustomed to eating. Hegai hesitated to alter her diet, as he reasoned that suddenly
altering Esther’s dietary regimen would adversely affect her beauty. Or, as further suggested by
Ben Yehoyada, it was known that kosher meat was more nutritious than non-kosher meat and

47
Esther simply requested the healthier diet. The second opinion, that of Rav Yochanan, was that
Esther claimed to be a vegetarian (MeAm Lo’ez), requesting a diet of seeds, beans, and nuts,
similar to the diet requested by Daniel, Chananiah, Michael, and Azariah, when held captive in
Nebuchadnezzar palace (Daniel 1:16). In contrast to meat, no one specific vegetable, bean, seed,
or nut contains all the essential amino acids or fatty acids needed for good health. Thus, Esther
needed to mix and match her vegetables, beans, nuts, and seeds to maintain proper nutrition.
Despite her non-meat diet, Esther maintained both her health and beauty (Megillas Sesarim).

The third opinion, the most radical, was that of Shmuel, who suggested that Hegai feed Esther
fatty hog bacon, a delicacy (Talmud Chullin, 17a). Rashi, coming to the defense of Esther, noted
that as Esther was forced to consume this non-kosher food, she was not liable for sinning.
Tosafos (Talmud Megillah 13a), however, strongly noted that it was unthinkable that Esther
ate treif. Coming to Esther’s rescue, Ben Yehoyada suggested that Esther ate shibuta, i.e., a kosher
fish, the brains of which have a taste similar to that of pork meat. Megillas Sesarim, amongst others
(Rav Sorotzkin), explained that Mordechai and Esther, applying their knowledge of kaballah,
fashioned a female android - an Esther look-alike - who substituted for Esther when pork was the
main dish. According to the Aruch, the correct reading of the Talmud is not “fatty pork” but rather
the “tops of lettuce,” thus, the problem of eating treif was non-existent.

“Every day Mordechai walked in front of the court of the harem to find out about Esther’s well-
being and to learn what would become of her” (Esther 2:11). Not to publicize a specific interest in
Esther, Mordechai took daily strolls through the harem’s courtyard. Apparently, he understood
that Esther’s predicament was a Divine tool to ultimately serve the Jewish people, although at this
point, the game plan was unknown to Mordechai. Mordechai’s concern for Esther’s well-being
was two-fold. Firstly, because of Esther’s beauty, he was concerned that the other women in the
harem would physically harm her. Secondly, Mordechai was concerned over Esther’s mental
health, as she was distraught and had fallen into a deep depression, causing her complexion to
change to a greenish hue (Vilna Gaon, cited by Rav Sorotzkin).

Esther’s physiological symptoms parallel the pathology, chlorosis, or green sickness disease,
which is common in young women, virgins or unmarried, and, at times in childless women.
Chlorosis is characterized by a facial complexion of green, greenish yellow, sallow, or light green
skin, accompanied by a mental state of depression, weakness, decreased appetite, and reduced food
intake, possibly leading to anorexia. Such females avoid consuming red meat, exhibit lowered
blood concentrations of hemoglobin, and are anemic. Although there is a normal expectation for a
female to recover from chlorosis, there is a tendency for a relapse in later life (Loudon, 1980,
1984). Esther’s depression and vegetarian diet may have been factors inducing chlorosis. Yet,
despite her physical and mental health issues, “Esther would captivate all who saw her” (Esther
2:15), again, indicating the touch of grace bestowed upon her by HaShem. Esther was compared
to a beautiful statue, upon which if a thousand people gaze and all admire equally. If Median and
Persian women were placed on either side of Esther, her beauty was greater than all
(Midrash Esther Rabbah 6:9). According to Yalkut Shimoni, everyone identified Esther as
belonging to their nation. Achashverosh ruled over 127 provinces, from India to Ethiopia - i.e.,

48
peoples of differing colors, cultures, and psychological mindsets - yet, each province identified
Esther as one of their own. This testifies to the extent of the illusion that HaShem created to endear
Esther to all that saw her.

In the third chapter of the Megillah mention is made of Haman’s promotion in rank and his plot
against the Jews, as well as Mordechai’s refusal to bow to him. In chapter 4, Mordechai rented his
clothes, put on a sack cloth and ashes, and sat in the midst of Shusan, crying bitterly. News of
Mordechai’s unusual actions was brought to the attention of Esther, who was unaware of political
events as she was involved in biyur chametz (Rav Sorotzkin). Upon hearing the reason for
Mordechai’s mourning, Esther terrified (literally, “she became full of hollows”) (Esther 4:4).
Several explanations were put forth to explain this unusual expression. Rav Yirmiya suggested
that Esther’s bowels loosened (Talmud Megillah 15a). Diarrhea can stem from many causative
agents, such as.viral or bacterial infections, medications, sugar-free foods containing sorbitol, fats
substitutes (i.e., Olestra), and irritable bowel syndrome. However, with Esther, the cause of the
diarrhea may have been linked to increased stress or anxiety. In the world of today, stressors that
induce diarrhea include drastic life changes, e.g., death of a loved one or divorce, pressures at
work, or travel (Lewis, 2010). Stress can also lead to irritable bowel syndrome (Zender and
Olshansky, 2009).

Rav, presented a different explanation, stating that Esther became a menstruant (Talmud Megillah
15a). One cause of dysfunctional uterine bleeding, defined as abnormal uterine bleeding in the
absence of organic disease, is stress. Excessive stress, exercise, and weight loss may cause
hypothalamic suppression, leading to abnormal uterine bleeding resulting from the disruption of
the hypothalamus-pituitary-ovarian pathway (Estephan and Sinert, 2010). Others have correlated
mental health problems with abnormal menstruation (Sheinfeild et al., 2007). For example, a
higher incidence of abnormal menstruation was noted in women with phobic anxiety, diet and
sleep disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (Liu et al., 2010).

Another opinion, presented in Midrash Esther Rabbah (8:3), was that Esther was pregnant and now
miscarried. There are many risk factors for early miscarriage, ranging from a woman’s age, her
hormonal levels (progesterone, in particular), and perceived higher levels of stress/demands,
which correlated with higher concentrations of corticotrophin-releasing hormones and reduced
levels of progesterone-induced blocking factor (Arck et al., 2008).

Mordechai and Esther devised a plan to counteract Haman’s evil decree against the Jewish people.
Mordechai sent to Esther a copy of the decree and ordered her to beseech the king and plead with
him to save the Jewish people. To approach the king without being summoned was a death
sentence and Esther was hesitant. Mordechai stressed that Esther would not be excluded from the
evil decree and stated, “For if you remain silent at this time, relief and rescue will come from
elsewhere and you and your father’s household will perish (Esther 4:13-14). Esther requested the
Jews in Shushan to undertake a 3-day fast on her behalf. She uttered her famous statement, “I will
go to the king contrary to the law and if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16). Approaching the king

49
without being summoned (Esther 5:1) had ramifications on her future relationships with
Mordechai. According to the opinion that Mordechai and Esther were husband and wife, her
willingness to approach the king without being summoned now made her forbidden to
Mordechai (Talmud Megillah 15a). Interesting, there is an opinion that prior to this point
(i.e., Esther 5:1), all of Esther’s personal relations with Achashverosh were performed through her
look-alike android (Megillas Sesarim, 2:9; Rav Sorotzkin).

The 3-day fast started on the 14th of Nissan, lasted through the 15th (i.e., the first day of Pesach)
to the end of the 16th day when Haman was hanged. Esther guarded the secret of her Jewish origins
for nine years, until when she pleaded for her people, which resulted in Haman’s downfall in the
twelfth year of the reign of Achashverosh (MeAm Lo’ez). The Purim victory occurred in 3405 and
in the following year, Achashverosh died and was succeeded by Darius II, the son of Esther. Most
commentators state that Achashverosh was the father of Darius II; however, Tosfos HaRosh
suggested that Mordechai was the father. In any event, Darius II - a child of six years - assumed
the leadership of the Persian Empire (MeAm Lo’ez). Although raised as a Persian, but undoubtedly
influenced by his mother, in 3408 Darius II ordered the construction of the Second Beis
HaMikdosh, 70 years after the destruction of the First Beis HaMikdosh, as prophesized by
Jeremiah (Spiro, 2010).

References

Arck, P.C., Rucke, M., Rose, M., Szekeres-Bartho, J., Douglas, A.J., Pritsch, M., Blois,

S.M., Pincus, M.K., Barenstrauch, M., Dudenhausen, J.W., Nakamura, K., Sheps, K., and Klapp, B.F., 2008, Early risk factors for
miscarriages: a prospective cohort study in pregnant women, Reprod. Biomed. Online. 17:101-113.

Deutsch, Y., 2002, Let My Nation Live, Mesorah Publ., Ltd., Brooklyn, NY

Estephan, A. and Sinert, D.O., 2010, Dysfunctional uterine bleeding, http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/795587-overview

Heller, T., 2009, Exploring the Meaning of Life’s Moments. Here You Are, Targum Press, Southfield, MI

Hoenig, L.J., 2006, Queen Esther: strong as steel but iron deficient, Florida Jewish News (Adar10-16, 5766).

Lewis, R., 2010, Can stress cause diarrhea? http://www.ehow.com/about_50p63158_can-stress-cause-diarrhrea.html

Liu, X., Yang, Y., Yuan, P., Zhang, X., Han, Y., Cao, Y., and Xiong, G., 2010, A study of the relationship between mental health
and menstrual abnormalities in female middle school students from postearthquake Wenchuan, Biosci. Trends, 4:4-8.

Loudon, I.S.L., 1980, Chlorosis, anaemia, and anorexia nervosa, Br. Med. J., 281:20-27.

Loudon, I., 1984, The disease called chlorosis, Psychol. Med., 14:27-36.

50
Sheinfield, H., Gal, M., Bunzel, M.E., and Vishne, T., 2007, The etiology of some menstrual disorders: a gynecological and
psychiatric issue, Health Care Women Int., 28:817-827.

Smith, K., 2010 (retrieved 9/27), Sensational color. All about the color green, http://www.sensationalcolor.com/color-meassages-
meanings/color.

Spiro, K., 2010, Crash Course in Jewish History, Targum Press, Southfield, MI.

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_jaundicep (retrieved 12/15/2010)

Zender, R. and Olshansky, E., 2009, Women’s mental health: depression and anxiety, Nurs. Clin. North Amer., 44:355-364.

Translations used:

-The Book of Esther, MeAm Lo’ez, 1978, Maznaim Publ. Co., NY, NY

-The Megillah. The Book of Esther. 1991, Mesorah Publ., Ltd., Brooklyn, NY

-The Five Megilloth, vol. 1, Esther, Song of Songs, Ruth, 1992, The Judaica Press. NY, NY

-Tractate Megillah, 1991, Mesorah Publ., Ltd., Brooklyn, NY

The Dangers of Taking Midrashim Figuratively-Esther's Green

Skin

Jonathan Waxman writes:14

In my previous post, I took Rabbi Rosenthal to task for presenting a rather simplistic view
that all midrashim are non-true as far as actual reality/history goes and should be understood as
metaphorical.

While searching the internet, I discovered an earlier essay that Rabbi Rosenthal had written for
the Jewish Times, also instructing people not to take midrashim literally. One of his two examples
in this article is:

Esther, whom the Megilla describes as beautiful, the midrash portrays as actually having a
bizarre green color. (Megilla 13a).

14
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2006/06/dangers-of-taking-midrashim_04.html

51
Later on, among the questions one should ask about this midrash, are the following:

Imagine that we could watch a video of the king’s “beauty pageant” the way we watch the
Academy Awards. What do you think Esther looked like? Do you think that she was the most
beautiful girl in Shushan? Do you think she was green?

And

Do you think Achashverosh would have been attracted to a “green” girl?

The impossibility of this situation and the general attitude of taking midrashim figuratively leads
him to some conclusion in which Esther's wisdom factors in, as well as of Divine hashgacha. As he
writes:

Esther, as the midrash points out, though good looking, was by no means a perfect “ten”. She
had some distinct drawbacks as a beauty queen that normally should have disqualified her from
the interest of a superficial person such as Achashverosh. In reality she had no more chance of
winning the pageant than if she had been green.

Thus, of course the midrash did not mean that she was literally green. It is rather a schocking
device to draw out a deeper lesson that it was not her beauty that saved the day.

I would note that the idea of Divine hashgacha is not off the mark -- in fact, the actual text of the
midrash says this almost overtly, if he had bothered to cite it -- but that that does not necessarily
mean that the midrash was not to be taken literally. Alas, I believe that Rabbi
Rosenthal mistranslated the midrash, and proceeded from there. And his general attitude of taking
midrashim figuratively led him astray and prevented him from delving deeper.

First, the mistranslation. The gemara actually says:

"Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha amar: Esther yerakroket hayeta, veChut shel chesed mashuch
aleha."

The context is an analysis of the name hadassa, which Esther is given in the megilla. Many other
explanations of hadassa are given, and then this one is given. hadassa, from hadas, meaning
"myrtle." Thus, she was yerakroket, presumably like the myrtle. Indeed, Ktav Yad Oxford, which
Jastrow cites, inserts kehadas, that she was yerakroket like a myrtle.

Now, since a myrtle is green, the natural inclination is to assume yerakroket means exactly the
same deep green shade, and thus Esther is an alien or a lizard! yerakroket actually encompasses a
wide range of colors, including yellow, blue, and green.

So what is yerakroket? The American Heritage Dictionary (cited at dictionary.com) perhaps comes
to the rescue, in its definition of the word "sallow":

52
Looking at M-W.com

This is for the willow, not for the myrtle, but we see comparisons of plant color to complexion.

Background on the Daf meanwhile notes that it could mean green or yellow, and here translates
as "a pale complexion" (taking it to mean "yellow").

Thus, one need not leap immediately to the conclusion that Esther was green. Perhaps she was
pale, or better, she had a sallow - that is, a sickly greenish-yellow complexion. The fact that such
a word exists means that it is not uncommon to occur. Such people look sickly and are typically
not the paragon of beauty. But at the same time, they do not look like space aliens, as Rabbi
Rosenthal appears to read the midrash! She is not a bizzare green color!

Next, he contrasts the midrash which states that she was green, with the Megillah, which
describes Esther as beautiful. To cite once again:

Esther, whom the Megilla describes as beautiful, the midrash portrays as actually having a bizarre
green color. (Megilla 13a).

The derasha, however, is explicitly on the word hadassa, in Esther 2:7:

53
and that pasuk both states her name is hadassa and states that ‫ֹתַּאר ְוטוַֹבת ַמ ְרֶאה‬-‫ ְוַהַנֲּﬠָרה ְיַפת‬. Rabbi
Yehoshua ben Korcha certainly knew what the pasuk stated, yet he still stated his midrash.

A few pages later, in the gemara, the most beautiful women are listed, and Esther is among them,
and the gemara states that according to the opinion that Esther was yerakroket, we need to take
Esther out of the list and replace her with someone else.

Yet what happens to this verse? Does the midrash contradict the verse?

No, because that is not all Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha said. He said: Esther yerakroket
hayeta, veChut shel chesed mashuch aleha.

Presumably, this is how explains the continuation of the same pasuk that states that she was "fair
to look on" - that Hashem extended her "a strand of loving-kindness" which granted her
a chein such that she was ‫ֹתַּאר ְוטוַֹבת ַמ ְרֶאה‬-‫ ְיַפת‬.

Rabbi Rosenthal no longer needs to look deeper for the hidden meaning of Divine Providence.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha says it overtly.

But that does not mean that he did not also think that she actually had a sallow complexion.

Finally, Rabbi Rosenthal presented the idea that the midrash intended to shock us - the was not a
perfect ten, but was not bizarre looking either. Yet that is not what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha
seems to be trying to say. He is saying that she was not pretty, but it was this chut shel chesed that
did the trick. And indeed, if he is saying that she was middle of the road -- a beinonit, then compare
with the midrashic interpretation which immediately precedes:

Ben Azzai omer -- Esther lo arucha hayeta velo ketzara hayeta ela beinonit hayeta hehadassa.

Ben Azzai and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha are contemporary. One could say that this shows that
indeed Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha also meant a beinonit. But I would ask - why then would
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha give an alternate explanation which does not present her as
a beinonit? I believe this argues against this specific figurative explanation.

In sum, it is dangerous to assume that every midrash is meant figuratively, even if we ourselves
do not choose to believe it. If we wish to reject this midrash, there are plenty others to choose from
besides this "lucky" midrash (to borrow S.'s term), and these midrashim are on the very
same amud in the gemara. But if we find a midrash implausible, we firstly might not be correctly
understanding the midrash, and even if we are, perhaps the one who said it did find it plausible.
Finally, any kind of explanation should ideally be based on a careful examination of thew Biblical

54
and midrashic text, which can help us arrive closer to the truth, and perhaps in a less circuitous
route.

Considering Vashti's Tail and Esther's Green Skin15

Both were the subjects of previous posts about whether to take midrashim literally or
figuratively. Yesterday's discussion of Vashti's tail (see Daf Ditty Megillah 12) critiqued another
approach as being at odds with the context set out explicitly in the gemara. The author case Vashti's
tail as being emblematic of Vashti's outrage at the king's suggestion, while the gemara explicitly
states that Vashti was a prutza, and of like mind with Achashverosh, except that she developed
leprosy or that the angel Gabriel fashioned a tail for her, such that the implication was that she
would have willingly displayed her body if not for embarrassment now that her beauty was marred.
This highlighted a peril of interpreting midrashim figuratively -- if one proffers a figurative or
allegorical explanation of a midrash, he should first try to see the midrash in its original context
and see what themes Chazal are developing there. (I also discussed how Chazal's outlook might
be such that a literal interpretation is not bad, and mentioned some approaches that allow us to
simply disagree with narrative midrashim.)

Aboe, I pointed out that the theme/figurative meaning the author developed as a possible
interpretation of the midrash, namely that this was hidden Divine guidance, is in fact something
that is explicitly mentioned in the text of the gemara, rather than something that needs to be
tentatively suggested because of difficulties in believing that Achashverosh was from Mars and
Esther was from Venus. Once again, looking at the original source and its context could have
helped a lot. I pointed out as well, there, that it was likely that the midrash did not intend that
Esther had green skin like a Venusian but rather that she had a sallow complexion, which while
not pretty is perfectly normal. Indeed, just as the gemara derives Esther's complexion
from hadas (willow, and from hadasa, her name), the term sallow derives from the myrtle (arava).

Thinking both midrashim over, we might be able to suggest a joint theme which prompted each
midrash.

Firstly, while I emphasized context regarding Vashti's tail, it is important to note that while the
gemara was an original context, it was not the only original context. The gemara weaves in the
two midrashim about Vashti developing leprosy and about the angel Gabriel giving Vashti a tail
into a larger midrashic tapestry of the king commanding that Vashti appear before him and his
guests in the nude, and how Vashti was a prutza and given other circumstances would have wished
to display herself in this manner.

15
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2007/03/considering-vashtis-tail-and-esthers.html

55
However, as the gemara makes clear, these are citations of other sources to answer this difficulty.
Megillah 12b:

Thus, the (setama di) gemara asks why she would have refused to appear, given that she was
a prutza. It answers based on two earlier sources. Thus, it cites Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina that
something (some derivation, presumably from nigzar aleha as mentioned by Tosafot and a
Yerushalmi) teaches that she developed leprosy.

(Alternatively, "this difficulty" of why she did not come teaches that she developed leprosy. But
its reads better as a derivation from the text because that seems to be the usual semantic role
of melamed.)

And it offers another answer, from an earlier source, a brayta, that the angel Gavriel came and
fashioned for her a tail.

Alas, we cannot examine the original context of these statements, and just have as evidence the
way they are used in the gemara. Perhaps it was identical, perhaps not. We see how the gemara
reads these midrashim. But, for example, the nigzar aleha pasuk which might be the source for the
leprosy occurs in the megillah after the punishment, as the first verse in the second perek. Could
it be that the derasha did not even intend to offer a reason for her not coming, but rather was simply
describing her middah kineged middah punishment, and/or giving a reason that the king did not
take her back? Thus, caution may be appropriate here. Even if it was a reason for her not to appear
(which is how the gemara understands it), was the original context one that she was expected to
appear in the nude? That is also not clear, and there is no way of resolving it.

However, I did notice a theme common to both Esther's "green" skin and the set of midrashim
about Vashti developing leprosy or sprouting a tail. That is, the focus on divine intervention
directing events behind the scenes as opposed to natural occurrence of events as a result of Vashti
and Esther's beauty.

On the plain level of the text, Vashti's beauty is part of her downfall, for it prompts the king to
appear before him and his guests to show off, and she refuses. Similarly, Esther's ascendancy to
the throne is due to her exceptional beauty. Thus, ‫ֹרֶאיָה‬-‫ ְבֵּﬠיֵני ָכּל‬,‫ַוְתִּהי ֶאְסֵתּר ֹנֵשׂאת ֵחן‬.

Yet, there is a clear undercurrent in the text that all this is the hidden direction of God. It is evident

56
in the coincidences that all fit together. It is evident most explicitly in Esther's call to have the Jews
fast, such that her appearing before the king does not get her killed, as well as in Zeresh's
pronouncement that Haman is fated to fall before the Jews. Chazal pick up on this theme and
elaborate on it. This is what they do in the midrashim about Esther and Vashti.

God is cast as granter and remover of beauty, and it is that beauty and lack thereof that influences
events. Thus, Vashti, the text notes, is exceptionally beautiful. Assume she was not to appear in
the nude, but simply to impress everyone with her exceptional beauty. We still might understand
why she could refuse, but let us assume that a beauty would not mind impressing everyone. (Or,
if she was to appear nude, assume that she was a prutza, an exhibitionist. It is all the same.) Yet
God is directing events behind the scenes, and He wishes for her to refuse to come before
Achashverosh and his guests. God lowers the mighty and lifts the humble, and also grants and
removes beauty at will. This is what this pair of midrashim is saying. Leprosy, especially in Tanach
(or in midrashim), is often viewed as Divinely placed. Thus, Pharaoh gets leprosy for having Sarah
in his palace. Naaman gets leprosy, and wants it removed by Elisha. Generally, leprosy has a ritual
performed by a priest to remove it. Thus, it is no accident that just now she develops leprosy.
Similarly, if she sprouted a tail, she did not develop this naturally. The brayta states that the angel
Gavriel came and fashioned for her a tail. Thus, God, through his emissary, removes her beauty.

The opposite is the case for Esther. According to her midrash, she really was not so pretty, having
a sallow complexion. Yet Hashem extended to her a chut shel chesed so that she appeared
beautiful. Perhaps besides the derasha on her original name, Hadassa, the aforementioned phrase,
‫ֹרֶאיָה‬-‫ַוְתִּהי ֶאְסֵתּר ֹנֵשׂאת ֵחן ְבֵּﬠיֵני ָכּל‬, implies that she was not intrinsically beautiful but rather just
everyone who saw saw her chain. (Perhaps this is then the source of the shidduch description of
someone as "full of chain.") Thus, this is God granting her beauty in order to advance the narrative
and get her into the palace.

‫אסתר הבלונדינית‬

‫מאת‬: ‫אביתר כהן‬

‫לפי המסורת אסתר ירקרוקת הייתה‬

(‫"רבי יהושע בן קרחה אמר אסתר ירקרוקת היתה וחוט של חסד משוך עליה" )מגילה י"ג‬

‫ולפי דעתי הכוונה שהייתה בלונדינית‬

‫שכן לירוק במקרא )ומן הסתם גם בתקופה מאוחרת יותר( יש גם משמעות של צהוב‬

‫כך למשל מחלת הצהבת נקראה ירקון‬

57
 ‫דברים כח‪" :22‬יככה ה' בשחפת ובקדחת ובדלקת ובחרחר ובחרב ובשדפון ובירקון ורדפוך עד אבדך"‬

‫והזהב )זהוב ‪ /‬צהוב( נקרא גם ירוק ‪ /‬ירקרק‬

‫תהלים סח‪" :14‬אם תשכבון בין שפתים כנפי יונה נחפה בכסף ואברותיה בירקרק חרוץ"‬

‫ה ד ס ה ה יא א ס ת ר‬

‫אסתר ב‪" :7‬ויהי אמן את הדסה היא אסתר בת דדו כי אין לה אב ואם והנערה יפת תאר וטובת מראה‪"..‬‬

‫אסתר = כוכב נוגה‪ ,‬וזה גם המשמעות של השם העברי הדסה‬

‫שכן הצמח הדס קשור בצורה ישירה וברורה לכוכב נוגה )ונוס ‪ /‬אפרודיטיה(‬

‫ראו מאמרו של עזי פז – הרואה הדס בחלום )אתר סנונית(‬

‫כוכב נוגה שולט )על פי האסטרולוגיה( במזל שור ומאזניים‬

‫ואלו למעשה המזלות הכי בהירים )בעיקר שור( בצבע השיער העיניים והעור‬

‫מה שנותן גוון בלונדיני לשיער‪..‬‬

‫‪Secret of Queen Esther‬‬

‫‪Power of the Name‬‬

‫‪58‬‬
From "Manot HaLevi" by Rabbi Shlomo HaLevi Alkabetz16

"And thus I [Esther] will approach the king." (Esther 4:16)

Rabbi Yosef Gackon writes, concerning Esther’s three-day fast, that Esther [in fasting for
exactly three days] had the following kabbalistic intention.

Namely, that three days and nights contain seventy-two hours, and "B’chen" ["thus", in
4:16] equals seventy-two numerically [in letter-gematria], corresponding to the [exalted 72-
letter] Name of G-d hinted in the three verses [that begin], "Vayisa", "Vayavo",
"Vayet" [Exodus 14:19, 20, 21, each of which contain seventy-two letters precisely].

It was with the power of this Name that G-d split the [Red] sea and had the Israelites cross
over, and He guided them in His protection and they had no fear [of the enemy].

From that Name, [the flow of] the Divine life-force comes to Esther's
supernal [corresponding] ; for Esther [as our Sages say] was greenish in complexion [green is
a color associated with the sefira Chesed, Divine kindness, as the life-flow descends through the
upper worlds].

Esther, with the power of these seventy-two hours, approached [G-d], King of the world, in
her prayers; for she was sure of His help [that He would answer her and save the Jews]. Then,
in this [lowly physical] world, she approached King Ahasuerus.17

16
https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380338/jewish/Secret-of-Queen-Esther.htm

17
Translated by Carmel Kehati from p. 263.

59
In the chassidic masters we find the fragrance and color has meaning in our spiritual lives
beyond the mere metaphor:

Shem Mishmuel Matos 2:11

60
“and after man has perfected these three faculties then he comes to the faculty of speech
represented by the Chag of Succot, by the rituals of praise and gratitude using the 4 species
including the willow (whose shape looks like the lips) which is the power of speech.

The three other species represent the perfection (integration) of body soul and intellect through
which the power of speech is enabled.

And the etrog is the final perfection of the body as it states:

Every part of you is fair, my darling, There is no blemish in you.

The lulav represents da’as representing the intellect (as is known) the myrtle represents the soul
as intermediary faculty negotiating the space between body and soul so it has three leaves (just
like 3 judges in a court)

And Esther known as Hadassah was green in complexion as is known to the kabbalists …

The Fragrance of Cheshvan

R. Eliezer Kwass writes:18

Tishrei and Cheshvan stand next to each other in the calendar, but seem to be as far apart as two
months can be. Tishrei is full of holidays, joy, and intensity; Cheshvan does not even have one
minor holiday. Experiencing their juxtaposition feels like a spiritual roller- coaster ride. Tishrei

18
https://darchenoam.org/the-fragrance-of-cheshvan/

61
puts us on a high – with Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, and Simchat Torah; with the Shofar,
the Lulav and Etrog, and the Sukka; with introspection, prayer, excitement, and joy. Then comes
Cheshvan with its apparent vacuum. Cheshvan seems like the vacant lot left after the amusement
park has been taken apart and packed away at the end of summer.

How do we deal with the vacuum left after the Chagim? What is the special avoda (service of
Hashem) of Cheshvan? Two sources give us some insights.

Smell and Da’at

1. Rav Tzadok Hakohen zt”l of Lublin (Divrei Sofrim – Likutei Amarim) brings down a passage
from the Kabbalistic Sefer Yetzira. It connects all of the months to different aspects of a person.
Cheshvan is connected with the sense of smell.

2. The Maor Vashemesh (Parshat Shemini) says that the month of Cheshvan is associated with the
Sefira of Da’at.

What is the connection between smell and Cheshvan? What is the meaning of Da’at (usually
translated as knowledge)? What do these two sources teach us about the avoda of Cheshvan?

Says Rav Tzaddok, during the month of Tishrei we taste of the great Divine lights. In Cheshvan,
even though the taste is gone, the fragrance still remains. Cheshvan allows us to hold on to the
remnants of the holidays. Cheshvan is not a vacuum left after the holidays, but a vessel with which
we can hold onto them. Just as the fragrance of our etrog remains, the highs of Tishrei do not have
to disappear but can stay with us during Cheshvan.

Cultivating Da’at is the key to hold on to the Chagim, teaches the Maor Vashemesh. The Shem
Mishmuel (on Parshat Eikev, p. 77) explains that Da’at is neither wisdom nor a character trait;
rather, it is the connection between them. Someone with Da’at has so internalized his mind
experiences – wisdom, understanding, spirituality – that they translate into his feelings, his
character, and his actions. Someone without Da’at is like, says the Shem Mishmuel, someone
studying the political life of some far away country; he thinks about it in a detached way for it does
not affect him.

Da’at is knowledge and spirituality with connectedness. Da’at is the challenge of Cheshvan, taking
the highs of Tishrei – the resolutions of the days of Teshuva, the intensity of Rosh Hashana, the
joy of sitting in the Sukka and dancing with the Torah, the conviction with which we scream out
Hashem Hu Haelokim at the end of Yom Kippur – and translating them into normal daily life. We
live Cheshvan with a picture of Tishrei constantly in our minds. The energy of the holidays stays
with us and charges Cheshvan as well as the rest of the year.

62
 Narcissus tazetta (paperwhite, bunch-flowered narcissus

Only three flowers are mentioned by name in the Bible,

the shoshan or shoshannah ("lily" or "rose"), shoshannat haamakim (shoshannah "of
the valleys"), and ḥavaẓẓelet ha-Sharon ("rose" or "lily" of the Sharon (Valley)).

The complex question of the identification of the shoshan or shoshannah has

provoked more studies than any other flora mentioned in the Bible, there being
scarcely a beautiful flower found in lsrael (and even beyond its borders) that has not
been suggested.19

Rebbe Nachman speaks of the complexion of the face as a stage in levels of personal galut and
the way the tzaddik interacts with the lamdan in this dazzling Torah from Likutei Mehoran 12.

Likutei Mehoran 12:4

19
Jehuda Feliks: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/flowers-in-israel

63
4. And know! this is precisely as God intends it. The Holy One causes some great tzaddik to fall
into the mouth of the learned individual—i.e., the learned individual speaks wickedly of the
tzaddik. This is so that the tzaddik can then free the Oral Law, the Divine Presence, from being
exiled in the mouth of the learned. He then elevates her to her Source, from level to level: first to
the aspect of chibuk (embracing), afterwards to aspect of neshuk (kissing), and finally to the aspect
of zivvug (intimacy).

As it is written (Song of Songs 2:1), “I am the rose of Sharon”—at first she is green like a rose
(Zohar I, 221a). As [our Sages] taught: Esther was of a greenish complexion (Megillah 13a).

Rashi

Torah Temimah

64
Jastrow

Zohar 1:221a

The rose of the Sharon presents a difficulty since the havazelet is green and the rose is red. So how
can one call the Shechinah different colors and differing ones at that?

So Reb Shimon bar Yochai said that prior to Her conjugation she is in the mystery of strict
judgments without any sweetening like the green havazelet whose leaves are green whereas after
the yichud she becomes red mixed with white signifying her receiving chasadim (mercies) from
ze’ir anpin, whereby the gevurot are sweetened, her redness (judgments( by the whiteness
(mercies).

Sha’ar Ma’amarei RASHBI

65
Now, this tzaddik, [although] he has fallen into the mouth of the learned individual who speaks
arrogantly against him, he understands that the things which the learned individual says of him
are really permutations of the letters of the Oral Law. He also understands from which particular
laws these words originate. He accepts [the scholar-demons arrogant words] joyously and with
love, as our Sages taught: Those who are insulted… rejoice in their suffering and act out of love
(Shabbat 88b).

And <this> love, that the tzaddik accepts humiliation with love, is the aspect of chibuk: “His right
hand embraces me.” By means of the joy that results from his rejoicing in the suffering, he
elevates [the Divine Presence], the aspect of “I am the rose of Sharon,” to the aspect of heart, as
in, “You put joy in my heart.” Then he is in the aspect of “rock of my heart” (Psalms 73:26),
corresponding to the Oral Law, which is called a rock. As is brought in the Tikkuney Zohar (#21,
p.43a): Had Moshe Rabbeinu, of blessed memory, not hit the rock, we would not have to labor so
hard in the Oral Law.

66
This also corresponds to (Genesis 14:14), “And [Avraham] yarek (called out) et chanikhav (his
trained servants).” Avraham is the aspect of right, corresponding to chibuk. The word “YaReK”
alludes to the line of YaRoK (green) which is drawn from Binah and encircles the entire world (cf.
Chagigah 12a). “ChaNiKhav” alludes to benevolences, as the Midrash comments: It is similar to
ChaNiKhato (his surname) in that all of them were named Avraham after him (Bereishit Rabbah
43:2). In other words, this green line, which corresponds to “the rose of Sharon”/“Esther was of
a greenish complexion,” is the elevation which the Divine Presence has through chibuk from the
right.

I believe what Rabbenu is claiming that the zaddik, through his (as the yesod olam, the ninth
sefirah) suffering, carries the suffering of the Schechina and thereby sweetens her dinim, by
causing a channel for her (malchut the 10th sefirah) to reunite with ze’ir anpin. Her color
therefore changes like the flower from immature green to mature red/white.20

I am the rose of Sharon

A lily of the valleys. (Song of Songs 2:1)

This is a practice of blossoming forth and rooting down. Although we can’t be sure exactly what
flowers these are (various translations include rose, lily, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, lotus, crocus,
wildflower), we do know that these flowers have a resonance in the prophetic traditions of Isaiah
35:1-2 (The desert shall be glad, the wilderness shall rejoice and blossom like the rose) and Hosea
14:6-8 (I will be as the dew to Israel who will blossom as the lily).
As I chant these words I am rising towards the sunlight of glory and redemption, and at the same
time connecting myself to the deepest places in the world and in myself. The word for valleys
(amakim) also means the depths. When we blossom from those depths, our beauty, however
transient, is grounded in the fullness and power of our earthly existence.21

20
See my essay: Strung between Orthodoxy and Heresy at www.jyungar.com/
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5047de16e4b026a4c324cd81/t/5e47019d11f63a54cc7ea464/1581711778248/Torah+207+L
ikutei+Mehoran+final.pdf
21
https://www.rabbishefagold.com/rose-of-sharon-ani-chavatzelet/

67
68