Musar su Ester 2:24

The reason the קרבן מנחה is called מנחה is because the root of the word is הנחה, such as the הנחה, amnesty (tax reduction) king Ahasverus proclaimed for the provinces when he made a feast in honor of his marriage to Esther (Esther 2,18). The word is used similar to Zachariah 6,8: הניחו את רוחי, "They have gratified My spirit." Thus far the Rekanati.

Pharaoh's dreams contain very significant allusions. Let me first quote what the Zohar (Sullam edition page 6) has to say on the subject. Commenting on "here there arose seven healthy and good-looking cows from the river and they grazed in the meadow" (41, 18), the words "from the river" are understood as referring to the source of all blessing in this world, the emanation יסוד. The word היאור is equated with the river emanating from גן עדן described in Genesis 2, 10. This "river" originates from the emanation בינה, and "irrigates" (spiritually) the emanation יסוד, the spiritual domain in which Joseph is at home. The message in the dream is that all of Egypt receives its blessings because of Joseph. The Zohar continues saying that that "river" dispenses its blessings in seven different directions, i.e the seven cows represent the seven recipients of the river's blessings. The seven recipients of the river's largesse all co-exist peacefully. This is an unusual phenomenon. We may compare the meaning of the number seven in the Book of Esther, where Esther is attended by "seven maid-servants, the ones she was entitled to have allocated to her by the palace" (Esther 2, 9). On the other hand, we find that the king had "seven men-servants (castrated), who attended to his personal needs" (Esther 1, 10).

On the other hand we have the assurance by Midrash Rabbah (end of Parshat Shemini, section 13), that Torah will never be completely forgotten by Israel, while the Midrash understands the words in Leviticus 11,4, את הגמל "and the camel," as a reference to the exile in Babylonia. The camel is described there as מעלה גרה, (normally translated as chewing the cud) which is a reference to the distinction Daniel would achieve in that kingdom. It is based on Daniel 2,49, that "Daniel was at the king's gate” (was his confidant). The Midrash continues in this vein, interpreting the words in Levit. 11,4 את השפן, as applying to the exile under the Medes, when Mordechai rose to grandeur. Similarly the word ארנבת, is understood as referring to the rule of the Greeks, when Alexander displayed great respect for the Jewish sages. The Torah repeated in the case of all the foregoing: כי מעלה גרה הוא, which is lacking when the Torah describes the pig, hence the Midrash sees in the pig a reference to the exile under the Romans, who not only did not elevate Torah scholars to high positions, but killed them. This is confirmed by the verse in Isaiah 47,6: "I was angry at My people, I defiled My heritage (נחלתי); I put them into your hands (Romans) but you showed them no mercy." According to the Midrash the word נחלתי, refers to Rabbi Akiva and his companions.

When Solomon continues in the same verse of Proverbs to speak about אף ערכה שלחנה, he refers to the angels who grind the manna for the righteous in this World of the Future. The reason he uses the term אף, "also," is because once before, when the Jewish people were in the desert manna had descended for them from Celestial Regions. This is a hint of what would be in store for them in an idyllic future. The words: נערותיה תקרא, in Proverbs 9,3 are an allusion to the expression in Esther 2,9 where Esther is described as entitled to and receiving the services of seven maid-attendants. The number seven –according to Kabbalists – ensured that her soul would acquire a level of holiness every day of the week. May we all soon merit such a level of sanctity in our own lives, Amen.

Another allusion to this triple concept of G–d-Torah-Israel is found at the very beginning of Bereshit Rabbah, where Rabbi Aushiyah deals with Proverbs 8,30: ואהיה אצלו אמון, ואהיה שעשועים, יום משחקת לפני בכל עת, "Then I was with Him as an artisan; I was His delight daily, always rejoicing before Him." Rabbi Oshiyah says that the word אמון in that verse means both פדגוג, "a male nurse or tutor," a term used by Moses when he complained to G–d how he was expected to play nursemaid to the Jewish people (Numbers 11,12). He also understands the same word to mean something מוצנע, hidden, based on Esther 2,7 describing Mordechai as "hiding" Esther so that she would not have to participate in the Royal beauty contest. Rabbi Aushiyah adds that some understand the word אמון to mean "big." This is based on Nachum 3,8: התיטבי מנא אמון, "Were you any better than No Amon?" which the Targum renders as: הא את מבא מאלכסנדריא רבתא דיתבא בין נהרותא "are you better than the important city Alexandria which is situated between two rivers?"

Nonetheless it is difficult to see how the terms אמון, and פדגוג can be equated. The word that should have been used by the Midrash is אומן, the same word used by the Torah in Numbers 11,12. Posssibly the word אמון means tutor in the sense that the tutor is faithfully carrying out the master's instructions, much as Esther is described as maintaining her loyalty to Mordechai's instructions even when she was in the king's palace by the words כאשר באמנה אתו, "just as when she had still been in the house of Mordechai" (Esther 2,20). We would have to regard the letter ב in the word באמנה as something that could have been dispensed with just as it has been dispensed with in Psalms 45,8 משחך אלוקים שמן ששון, "the Lord anointed you with oil of gladness" (the letter ב in front of the word שמן being conspicuously absent, though implied). Alternatively, we can accept the view of Ibn Ezra that the word is a noun. Ibn Ezra explains that G–d had been Esther's tutor, that the word אתו refers to Him, that Esther's loyalty was to G–d. According to this view we deal with an allusion to the tremendous power of Torah and its exalted position in G–d's scheme of things. [I believe this is a printer's error as I have not found such an Ibn Ezra, and it is not his style at all. Perhaps the author means the קו ונקי, whose text I have not seen. Ed.]

In Megillah 19 we find an argument as to how much of the Megillah has to be read. Four views are mentioned as we have already stated earlier. The views are based on whether תקפו של אחשורוש, or תקפו של מרדכי, or תקפו של המן, or תקפו של נס i.e. the power of Ahasverus, Haman, Mordechai or the extent of the miracle, determines from which point the story has to be read in order to fulfil the commandment. The view mentioned last, that of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, states that the extent of the miracle is what determines from which part of the Megillah one has to start reading. Why would his colleagues of the Mishnah disagree with such a viewpoint?

To sum up: The Holy Temple will be built on the territory of Benjamin who had never bowed nor prostrated himself before Esau. Midot (2, 6) mentions thirteen occasions when one had to prostrate onself before G–d in the Holy Temple. That number corresponded to the numerical value in the word אחד, "One." When, in exile, after the destruction of the Holy Temple, Mordechai, scion of the tribe of Benjamin, refused to bow down to an alien deity, he, Esther's godfather, became the instrument through whom the Temple was rebuilt with the help of the Persian king Cyrus, a son of Esther. Although the kingdom did not remain in the hands of the tribe of Benjamin, the Holy Temple remained and will remain in that territory. In retrospect, all this was alluded to by the manner in which Samuel anointed Saul. He used only a cruse of oil; he anointed David by pouring the oil from a קרן, horn. The significance of this will be explained later.

Concerning the Midrash calling the פדגוג, אמון instead of אומן, the reason is that the Midrash understands the word בראשית as alluding to two concepts. One is the תורה הקדומה, which remains hidden, i.e. which is "be-omnah-itto," still attached to Him" [in the sense of Esther 2,20]. This is the imprint of G–d that we have described earlier. It is a reference to the שורש of the soul of the בני העליה we have spoken of as being the mystical concept of the elite of Israel that was first in G–d's mind. The other is the תורה הנתונה, the Torah that was to be revealed, which acts as tutor, פדגוג, for Israel in the sense an אומן does. What is alluded to is the mystique of the number י when referring to G–d and the same number 10=י, when used in the context of Israel. When the Torah describes the creation of man as taking place as בצלם ובדמות, the meaning must be that man of the "lower" regions is to reflect אדם, "man" of the "higher" regions. The only way this can be achieved is through the "light" of Torah that remains hidden with G–d.

Having said all this, we can better understand the disagreement between the first three sages in the Mishnah Megillah 19 dealing with which parts of the Megillah a person must have heard or read in order to have discharged his minimal duty to hear the Purim story. All three sages are agreed that the part in which G–d's goodness is displayed after the Jews had embraced the Torah voluntarily is an essential part of such a reading. This is why none of these three sages accepts the view of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai that it suffices to read from the point where the king could not sleep (Esther 6,1), an event which took place after the first feast Esther gave for the King and Haman, i.e. after the Jews did תשובה. The view that the Megillah has to be read from the very beginning, i.e. describing the power of Ahasverus, is easy to understand. It points out that the treatment of the Jews by Ahasverus at that meal contrasted sharply with his treatment of his queen whom he had tried to force to display herself in front of his ministers. The king displayed self-control in his dealings with the Jews at the time, i.e. his תקף, consisted of what our sages have described in Avot 4,1: "Who is a hero? He who can control his passions." Since the king had displayed the ability to conquer his natural urges, the Jews likewise could do no less but overcome their reluctance to accept the yoke of the Torah and embrace the Torah voluntarily, joyfully. The sage who believes that it suffices to read the Megillah from the point where the outstanding personality of Mordechai is described, i.e. from where the text introduces Mordechai in Esther 2,5, appears to hold that the reason the Jews accepted the Torah voluntarily at that time is similar to the second reason I have listed, the revolutionary change that occurred in the political constellation and which brought Mordechai the Torah-true Jew, member of an exiled nation, to a position of such great power. We are to appreciate that the half-shekel contribution which is described in the Torah in connection with the allusion to the name Mordechai was the key to Haman's failure and Israel's survival. Once they realised this, the Jews naturally embraced Torah enthusiastically. The third view, which holds that it is sufficient to read from the part in which Haman's rise to power, i.e. the troubles he caused the Jews, is described (Esther 3,1), considers the failure of the Jews to offer to change their religion as tantamount to accepting the Torah voluntarily. Rabbi Yossi, the sage who held this view, assumed that wholesale conversion by the Jews would have saved them from Haman's decree.

When Jacob realized that he had already become the beneficiary of being Esau's twin, as we explained earlier, he felt entitled to describe himself as "I am your firstborn Esau, I have done as you have commanded me." We can understand this still better when considering a statement by the Zohar Parshat Vayetze (Sullam edition page 3), which states that after Queen Esther was appointed queen, and ותלבש מלכות, wore the royal robes, she assumed control both of Ahasverus and of his entire kingdom. Though they shared the same bedroom she never had marital relations with the king. She behaved like Joseph of whom the Torah says that he left his בגדו in the hands of Mrs. Potiphar (Genesis 39, 13). The word בגד suggests something that is deceptive like the בוגד, traitor. It is also an outer garment, concealing the true person underneath. Had the Torah used the term לבוש, it would not have a doubtful meaning. The king, who is described as having loved Esther more than any other woman (Esther 2,17), really consorted only with a demon who assumed the guise of Esther's outer garments. Whoever appreciates the mystical significance of התלבשות, will understand what I have in mind.