Hot answers tagged megillat-esther
8
I'm fascinated by the midrashic answers presented for this! Are there more?
From a scholarly perspective, the increased use of the participle in place of the narrative waw-consecutive imperfect (wayiqtol) form is a classic feature of Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH).
To unpack that a bit... What Modern Hebrew treats as the "present tense" (words like molekh, ...
7
Megilla 13b says that Ester would "rise from the bosom of Achashverosh and immerse herself and sit in the bosom of Mordechai". Tosfos Harosh asks how this was permitted due to the law of "havchana" (the requirement for a women to abstain from relations for three months between husbands to identify the father), and explains that she utilized ...
6
According to this commentary, Haman symbolizes the Yetzer Harah (evil inclination), and his ten sons allude to its ten bad character traits. Their death brought about by Mordechai and Esther represents the nullification of such evil traits by being overpowered by the Yetzer Tov (good inclination). He goes through the ten sons, and explains the meaning ...
6
How did Achashverosh not think that Mordechai would be disturbed by the decree to kill all the Jews?
2 potential answers, neither of which has been researched.
First, psychological:
Achashverosh didn't want to owe anyone anything. He didn't actually care about Mordechai or his people; he cared about his record (the potentially public knowledge that he doesn't repay his debts).
Second, textual:
As far as I can tell, Haman never identifies his ...
5
(Note that not every m'gila has a pole at one end. Some do, though, as you note. See Mishna B'rura 691:16.)
Aruch Hashulchan (Orach Chayim 691:7) explains:
A sefer Tora (Torah scroll) requires two poles because we read from it constantly; for n'viim and k'suvim one pole suffices.
I suspect the intent is that a sefer Tora needs the greater stability ...
5
It is possible that, though the idea as originally outlined for the king by his advisers did in fact include the criterion of 'besulot', when the king issued the edict that criterion was omitted. Hence we do not find it listed in 2:8 and on, where it lists נְעָרוֹת alone:
וַיְהִי, בְּהִשָּׁמַע דְּבַר-הַמֶּלֶךְ וְדָתוֹ, וּבְהִקָּבֵץ נְעָרוֹת רַבּוֹת ...
4
I know this isn't the most geshmake answer, but Ibn Ezra (2:7 - p. 8 here) is clearly bothered by a similar question and says that perhaps the drasha that Mordechai took Esther for a wife doesn't mean that he actually married her, but that such was his intention. (I would add that in order to keep all the drashos one would have to conclude that he had at ...
3
The Ibn Ezra in his introduction to Ester answers that the book of Ester was originally part of the Persian chronicles, but the Persians attributed it all to their god's name rather than to ours; so when Mordechai wrote the book of Ester copying it from the Persian chronicles, he erased the name of their god, so his not mentioning God's name was actually out ...
3
Rabbi Levi Yitzchok Shneerson explains this discrepancy Kabbalistically (Likkutey Levi Yitzchok (Pesukey Tanach Umamareh Chazal pg. 95, see Sefer Ha'erchin Chabad (Mareches Ha'osyos vol. 1 pg. 369)). The main idea is as follows: There is a concept in Kabbalah known as the "18 Women of Leah" (which is why a king may marry a maximum of 18 wives). This is ...
3
1) Indeed, if you have one midrash, you don't need the other. This is likely a disagreement, rather than an assertion that both happened.
Rabbi Yossi ben Hanina, the one who stated that it was tzaraat, is an Amora of Eretz Yisrael. As Tosafot notes on the daf, in the parallel Yerushalmi, we find out that this is a derasha on the word nigzar in Esther 2:1:
...
3
As Gershon answered, the Midrash identifies the latter Charvona spelt with a Hey as Eliyahu Hanavi. (The Rama (OC 690:4) cites this as the basis for the phrase "וגם חרבונה זכור לטוב" - "Charvona who is remembered for good" in Shoshanas Yaakov, [although the Gemora says that the original Charvona was in fact evil and part of Haman's wicked plot]; since this ...
3
Perhaps this can be explained by the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov quoted in the beginning of this article:
"הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא", שכאשר קורא את המגילה באופן שחושב שזהו מאורע שאירע בעבר, למפרע, אזי לא יצא, כיוון שהתורה היא נצחית, וכל ענייניה ישנם גם בהווה.
One who reads the Megilla out of order does not fulfill his obligation. Meaning ...
2
Rashi Breishis 45:18 says that Paroh - "Niba V'Aino Yodeya Ma Niba ניבא ואינו יודע מה ניבא" - said something which was prophetic yet he did not know what he said. Most likely the same holds true regarding Achashveirosh, and he had no Ruach HaKodesh.
Regarding Lashon HaKodesh Chasam Sofer Derush L'Zayin Adar 5568 clearly says that he only spoke Persian to ...
2
Assuming we are translating besulah as 'unmarried' I would further assume that they kept their marriage quiet lest she become unmarried by dint of the king killing her husband. This seems to be a pervasive concern as it crops up by Avraham and Yitzchak.
Furthermore it would seem that the marriage was kept quiet even amongst the Jewish people, otherwise it ...
2
I saw an answer in the Midrash Rabba (end of Pesichta 3). Esther was saying that she would be silent, since it could be that they deserved to be sold as slaves (the Torah says in the Tochacha that if the Jews don't keep the Torah they will be sold as slaves).
However, there is no curse that Jews will be all eradicated. Since she knew that this punishment ...
2
This can be found on page 5 of this pdf of "Kadmonim Tzarfatim" (linked from this page).
ומה היא הגזירה שיגזור עליה? "אשר לא תבא ושתי לפני המלך אחשורוש", שכשם שמיאנה לבא בדבר המלך אשר ביד הסריסים, כן לא תבוא עוד לפניו. וכל האומר שקצוה משפט מות טועה הוא בפשוטו של מקרא, שאם הרגוה מה צורך לכתוב דבר זה בדתי פרס ומדי שלא תיבטל לאחר שיהרגהה?
2
It looks to me that Rashi is saying either that the message did not get through except by the shluchim (though one might expect word to travel between communities) or that even if it did come through as rumor or hearsay, no one could accept it and believe it until it came in officially, so no one had responded to it on the level of rumor.
1
First the doubt is not whether Tiberias was walled, or not, it is a matter of whether Tiberias was settled from before the days of Yeshoshua Bin Nun this seen clearly on page 6a of the same Gemarra(English for those who need it).
The Beit Yosef brings this in 688:4. There he brings the Rambam who says the sofek is whether it was walled from the days of ...
1
I think that, perhaps, Rashi is to be interpreted as follows. (This is my own idea, so take it with a heavy grain of salt.)
Notice the words of the pasuk on which Rashi is commenting: "דְּבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ וְדָתוֹ". Something about those words, specifically, is bothering him, and I propose that it's the repetition. When the king's word arrived somewhere, so did ...
1
As mentioned in the comments, the Mishnah is just talking about one who reads the megillah. Someone who is falling asleep while listening will not be able to hear every word. The Shulchan Aruch is clear on this:
קראה מתנמנם, הואיל ולא נרדם בשינה, יצא. אבל אם שמעה מתנמנם, לא יצא.
This still doesn't answer the question of how much focus you need to ...
1
Per the comment from Rabbi Slifkin on the parshblog, the term "tail" can at times be referring euphemistically to the phallus, as it states by Amalek וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כָּל-הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים (devarim 25:18) which Rashi (based on the midrash) explains as
and cut off: [The word וַיְזַנֵּב is derived from the word זָנָב, meaning “tail.” Thus, the verse means: ...
1
Perhaps the גמרא is providing two separate answers to one question. The question is what prevented Vashti from following Achashveirosh’s request to attend the party.
The first answer to this question appears straight forward. Vashti had some skin problem that made her feel unable to go before Achashveirosh. Perhaps her she felt unattractive, like some ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
