The essay before us centers on a well-known passage in the Gemara in Masechet Megillah (15a): "The Sages taught: What did Esther see that led her to invite Haman?" The Gemara records twelve or thirteen reasons why Esther invited Haman specifically to the banquet. We will focus on one of them, the reason given by Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya: "Perhaps the Omnipresent will notice and perform a miracle for us."
וַתֹּאמֶר אֶסְתֵּר אִם־עַל־הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב יָבוֹא הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהָמָן הַיּוֹם אֶל־הַמִּשְׁתֶּה אֲשֶׁר־עָשִׂיתִי לוֹ׃ (ה, ד) - And Esther said, "If it please the king, let the king and Haman come today to the banquet that I have prepared for him" (5:4).
What does "Perhaps the Omnipresent will notice" mean? Rashi explains: The Omnipresent will notice that I am drawing the enemies close. That is, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will see that I am bringing Haman closer. But this immediately raises a difficulty: Is this a reason to perform a miracle? After all, by doing this she is only elevating Haman and granting him power, making him a companion at banquets with the king and queen! The Maharsha asks: "Would she bring the trouble even closer just for this?"
The Maharsha answers that her intention was for the Holy One, Blessed be He, to see that "there is none remaining, shut up or left at large." This is a fundamental principle we have discussed several times: sometimes, in order to repair something, it must first be brought to the point of breaking, because as long as it has not completely broken, it will never be fully repaired - as long as it limps, it will continue to limp. Esther brings the situation to the absolute extreme, to a place where there is no savior other than the Holy One, Blessed be He, alone; and when Hashem sees the magnitude of our distress, He will bring salvation.
The Zera Shimshon explains the Maharsha's meaning: where death and danger are certain, we do not take fleeting life (chayei sha'ah) into account. As taught in the second chapter of Avodah Zarah: Rav Chisda said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, if it is uncertain whether he will live or die, one may not seek healing from them; if he will certainly die, one may seek healing from them. The Gemara asks: But "there is fleeting life" to consider? And it answers: We do not concern ourselves with fleeting life.
Let us explain the Talmudic discussion. Gentiles were suspected of bloodshed, and a gentile physician might kill a Jew placed in his care and claim, "I administered medication, but what could be done - the patient died," as in the grim saying, "The surgery succeeded, but the patient died." Therefore, if it is uncertain whether the patient will live or die, one may not be treated by him: there is a possibility he might recover on his own, and entrusting him to the gentile only increases the risk, effectively sealing his death. But if the doctors determine that his condition is such that he will certainly die, there is nothing left to lose, and there is a chance that this gentile might be upright and cure him.
Yet here too, one might raise an objection: even if he is going to die anyway, if he is not handed over to the physician, he might live for another two days, whereas at the hands of the gentile, he might die within two hours! This is the concept of "chayei sha'ah" - fleeting, temporary life. To this, the Gemara replies: we do not concern ourselves with fleeting life. When a person is facing certain death and there exists any possibility of saving him for a lasting life, we do not take into account the potential loss of a few fleeting hours or days.
The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we do not concern ourselves with fleeting life? As it is written: "If we say, 'Let us enter the city,' the famine is in the city..." And Rashi explains: Where it is uncertain whether he will live or die, one may not seek healing, for the gentile will certainly kill him; and "fleeting life" refers to the concern that the gentile might hasten his death, whereas left alone, perhaps he would have lived another day or two.
This refers to the four lepers from the Haftarah familiar to all of us. They were cast out of the city and made a calculation: If we enter the city - the famine is in the city and we will die there; if we sit here - we will also die. It is better for us to surrender to the camp of Aram, and perhaps they will show us mercy and we will live. Now seemingly, if they remained in their place, they would live another two or three days, whereas if they went to the camp of Aram, they might be killed immediately - so what about temporary life (chayei sha'ah)? From here we derive: when death is certain, yet on the other hand there is some chance of living, we pursue the chance of life even though we thereby endanger temporary life. But where there is a chance that one will truly live, we do not endanger actual life for the sake of a mere "maybe."
Yet this needs to be understood: How can we derive Halachah from Gehazi and his sons? After all, he was a wicked man - are we to learn from him? Would we also derive Halachah from his statement that he did not care if everyone died as long as he survived? Would we learn from the money he took from Na'aman in a desecration of Hashem's name?
Rather, the explanation is simple, and we find this in several places, including with Lavan: we learn from it because the Torah recorded the matter. What do we care about Gehazi's personal calculations? The Navi could simply have told us that they went to the camp of Aram, and that would have sufficed. If Scripture takes the trouble to lay out their entire thought process before us - "If we say, 'We will enter the city...' If they keep us alive, we shall live" - it is a sign that the prophet puts a stamp of approval on this reasoning, endorsing it as a sound calculation intended to teach us Halachah. It is a fundamental rule: anything recorded in the Torah, even if spoken by a wicked person, bears the Torah's endorsement that this reasoning is valid. (As for the cries of Sisera's mother - there no Halachah is derived, but rather we perform actions to nullify the cry of the forces of impurity; here, by contrast, Halachah is derived.)
Tosafot there write (s.v. Lechayei sha'ah lo chaishinan): But do we not say in Yoma that one clears debris from a collapsed building on Shabbat out of concern for temporary life (chayei sha'ah) - which proves that we do take temporary life into account! That is to say: if we know there is a person trapped under rubble, and after examining him it is clear that he will only live for a day or two, we nonetheless desecrate Shabbat for him. This shows that we do indeed consider temporary life! (And regarding the statement, "Desecrate one Shabbat for him so that he may observe many Shabbatot" - we have already noted that this is homiletical rather than the strict halachic rationale; the Halachah is that Shabbat is desecrated to save a life even if he will never observe another Shabbat.)
Tosafot answer: "It can be said that both here and there, we act for his benefit" - for there, if you do not consider him, he will die, whereas here, if you hold back and he is not healed by the gentile, he will certainly die; thus in both cases we abandon the certainty to act upon the uncertainty. In other words: when clearing rubble, there is no other option - he will either die immediately or live for a short time, so his best interest is that we take temporary life into account. In contrast, regarding medical treatment from a gentile, if we worry about temporary life, we deprive him of the possibility of a long life, twenty years, so his best interest is that we do not worry about temporary life. In both cases we set aside the certain outcome in order to pursue the possibility: with the sick person, we set aside the fear that the gentile will certainly kill him in order to pursue the possibility that he will cure him; and in the collapsed building, we set aside the certainty that he will die shortly in order to pursue the possibility that he will gain even temporary life.
Based on this, the Maharsha sought to explain Esther's action: since death was certain - the letters had been written and all were doomed to die - one does not be concerned with temporary life, and therefore she brought the trouble closer. But the Zera Shimshon counters: with all due respect, here the danger was no longer certain! On the contrary, Esther's intent was to plead with the king to annul the decree, especially after the miracle that she found favor in the king's eyes and he extended the golden scepter to her - showing that Heaven was assisting her in saving the Jewish people. The difficulty therefore returns: would she bring the trouble even closer because of this? All the more so given that the Omnipresent could perform a miracle regardless!
It turns out that inviting Haman at that very moment was like suicide. It would be understandable if we said that everyone was doomed to die anyway and it was merely a question of temporary life. But they were no longer facing certain death; one could already see that the king was showing her favor and that she was receiving assistance from Heaven. Why, then, would she exacerbate the danger and bring Haman into the picture?
Rather, says the Zera Shimshon, Rashi's words can be understood based on what Chazal taught: Whoever oppresses Israel becomes a leader. And the Maharsha explained in the eleventh chapter of Sanhedrin that this is for the benefit of Israel, so that they will not be subjugated under someone base and degraded.
Indeed, we see this in every generation: whoever persecutes Israel rises to greatness. Notice, however, that their time at the top is very short - they burn by their own torch and are consumed, yet in their moment they are made chief. The question remains: why? Here it is fitting to mention the words of the holy Ohr HaChaim, a truly wonderful explanation. The approach of the Ohr HaChaim is that a person with free will can harm even someone against whom it was not decreed (and we have already learned the resolution of this contradiction in Rav Friedlander's Siftei Chaim, that on the other hand we have a tradition from the Vilna Gaon and Rabbi Yisrael Salanter that no man touches what is prepared for his fellow, and so we rule in practice). But a king - "The heart of kings and ministers is in the hand of Hashem," and he cannot issue a decree without divine consent, nor can he harm anyone unless it was decreed upon him. Now it becomes clear: whoever wishes to oppress us is made chief, and in the golden phrase - the dog's chain is in the master's hand. The moment he becomes chief, he can no longer move on his own. "The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious."
In this vein, the Ohr HaChaim wrote at the opening of the Megillah:
וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הוּא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הַמֹּלֵךְ מֵהֹדּוּ וְעַד־כּוּשׁ שֶׁבַע וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה מְדִינָה׃ (א, א) - "Now it came to pass in the days of Achashverosh, he was the Achashverosh who reigned from Hodu to Kush, one hundred and twenty-seven provinces" (1:1).
And from where did he merit to reign from Hodu to Kush? By virtue of the "vayehi" (woe) that Israel experienced in his days. Since we were in distress in his days - whoever persecutes Israel is made chief, and consequently, so that we would not be handed over to someone despicable and lowly, the Holy One, blessed be He, elevated him. It is a disgrace to be delivered into the hands of the base, but to be delivered into the hands of an exalted king does not carry the same disgrace.
And the Iyun Yaakov in Perek Chelek explained another reason: Because Israel returns to the good through the afflictions of that king, and the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold reward from any creature, He therefore gives him his reward by making him chief. As it is stated in Perek Chelek: The Holy One, blessed be He, raises up for them a king whose decrees are as harsh as Haman's, and he brings them back to the good. In other words, the king oppresses us, and because of this we repent - and he deserves a reward for that. Would He save his reward for the World to Come? Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him: Take your reward here, become chief.
Incidentally, descendants of Haman studied Torah in Bnei Brak - by virtue of what? By virtue of the fact that "greater was the removal of the ring." Since Haman removed the signet ring and thereby aroused us to teshuvah, he merited that his descendants converted. And some say that one can still identify his descendants today in Bnei Brak, by their divisiveness...
Now, in this case of Haman, who sought to destroy and annihilate them from the world, one cannot apply the Maharsha's reasoning that the Holy One, blessed be He, elevated him so that Israel would not be subjugated under someone despicable and base. For the distinction between a base ruler and an exalted one pertains to the nature of the suffering: under a lowly king, one suffers constant humiliations, whereas an exalted king does not descend to such depths and our troubles are lighter. But if his intention was to destroy us entirely - once a person is buried ten handbreadths in the ground, what does it matter to him whether the destroyer was exalted or base and despicable?
Rather, one must perforce accept the other explanation: that the Holy One, blessed be He, elevated Haman so as not to withhold his reward for the repentance he caused Israel to perform. "And fast for me three days" - all of this repentance is credited to Haman. If so, Esther's intention was also along these lines: to draw Haman close so as not to withhold his reward for the fasts and prayers that Israel had already performed because of him. "Perhaps the Omnipresent will also take note that I am drawing close the enemies because they caused me to repent, and He will likewise accept my repentance and perform a miracle." Look, Master of the Universe - why am I drawing the enemy close? Because the enemy caused me to repent; have You taken note of my repentance? Through this, she sought to awaken the merit of teshuvah.
Incidentally, it is asked regarding Haman: Why did he decree to kill the Jews, from young to old, on a single day? What was the rush? Give it a week or two, for such a task could take a long time; even Hitler did not speak of a single day, and it took him four or five years. Rather, they said: Haman thought, "I know the Jews - if the plan does not succeed, they will afterwards establish a holiday. Shall I give them a two-week Yom Tov? One day is quite enough for them."
Initially, it seemed that the verse "Be not far from me, for trouble is near, for there is none to help" could be explained according to the Maharsha's view, as it seems to express this exact concept - that she brought the trouble closer so that "there is none remaining, bond or free." When the Holy One, blessed be He, sees that there is truly no one else to rely on, He enters the picture.
We have previously cited on this the words of Chazal regarding Esther: "'My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?' - She said, perhaps it is because I called him a dog? She then called him a lion: 'Save me from the lion's mouth.'" But what sin could there be in calling him a dog? Rather, the idea is profound: when a dog approaches a person, he looks for a stick or a stone to chase it away; but when a lion approaches him, he begins to recite the Vidui confession. To flee? It is faster than you. To fight? You cannot. At that point, you realize that only Hashem can help, and you say Shema Yisrael. Esther said: Perhaps I called him a dog, meaning, 'Master of the Universe, I can pretty much manage on my own, and it is merely preferable that You assist.' The Holy One, blessed be He, said to her: If so, manage on your own. She returned and said: No, he is a lion - meaning, I rely solely upon You. And this is the meaning of "Be not far from me, for trouble is near, for there is none to help" - only You can save me.
However, since the Maharsha's approach was refuted - given that at the time of inviting Haman the danger was no longer certain, for the king had already received her warmly and extended the scepter - we must explain the verse as referring to an earlier stage: when Esther went to the king's palace, even though she faced the uncertain danger that he might put her to death because she entered without permission. There, the danger of immediate death was real, and it was justified because if she did not go, she would certainly die, as it is written, "and if I perish, I perish." This aligns directly with the aforementioned Tosafot, that we abandon the certainty of death to pursue a possibility of life.
לֵךְ כְּנוֹס אֶת־כׇּל־הַיְּהוּדִים הַנִּמְצְאִים בְּשׂוּשָׁן וְצוּמוּ עָלַי וְאַל־תֹּאכְלוּ וְאַל־תִּשְׁתּוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים לַיְלָה וָיוֹם גַּם־אֲנִי וְנַעֲרֹתַי אָצוּם כֵּן וּבְכֵן אָבוֹא אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר לֹא־כַדָּת וְכַאֲשֶׁר אָבַדְתִּי אָבָדְתִּי׃ (ד, טז) - "Go, assemble all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens will also fast likewise, and so I will go to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish." (4:16)
Therefore, Esther said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Even though I am placing myself into uncertain danger by approaching the king contrary to the law, it is because "there is none to help," meaning "and if I perish, I perish." If it becomes known that I am Jewish, they will destroy me along with all the Jews - which is certain death; while on the other hand there is a possibility of salvation, that perhaps I will succeed in swaying the king's heart. And if you might argue: But are you not risking temporary life, for if you enter, his law is to put you to death immediately? To this we have already explained that we do not take temporary life into account when death is otherwise certain. And this is the advantage of this resolution: the Maharsha's words addressed the stage of inviting Haman, when the king had already received her warmly, which made it difficult; whereas when we apply the concept to the moment of entering before Achashverosh - there trouble was indeed near, death was certain, salvation was not yet visible, and it was better to forfeit temporary life to create a chance of rescue.
Furthermore, there is another great principle: to prevent people from saying that the entire miracle came to Israel solely through the merit of Esther and Mordechai, while all the fasts and prayers of Israel accomplished nothing - as if diplomacy worked, "we have a sister in the king's palace," and our fasting and repentance were merely unnecessary panic. Were that the case, it would lock the door before penitents, who would say: Look, in the end nothing was truly needed; Mordechai and Esther took care of the whole matter.
וּבִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ הוּא־חֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר בִּשְׁלוֹשָׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם בּוֹ אֲשֶׁר הִגִּיעַ דְּבַר־הַמֶּלֶךְ וְדָתוֹ לְהֵעָשׂוֹת בַּיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר שִׂבְּרוּ אֹיְבֵי הַיְּהוּדִים לִשְׁלוֹט בָּהֶם וְנַהֲפוֹךְ הוּא אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁלְטוּ הַיְּהוּדִים הֵמָּה בְּשֹׂנְאֵיהֶם׃ (ט, א) - "Now in the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, on the thirteenth day of the month, when the king's command and his decree drew near to be put into execution, on the day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to rule over them - and the opposite occurred, that the Jews ruled over those who hated them." (9:1)
This is why it is written, "and the opposite occurred, that the Jews ruled over those who hated them." Through the merit of Mordechai and Esther, it would have been enough merely to annul the decree; but through the repentance and fasts undertaken by Israel, the miracle expanded to the point of "and the opposite occurred." This teaches that their repentance was out of love, and we hold that repentance out of love transforms deliberate sins into merits. Similarly, "they reaccepted it in the days of Achashverosh" - out of love, from joy, because of the immense joy they felt over the miracle, as Rashi cites. Thus, it was the repentance that brought about the complete turnaround.
To allude to this, our entire rejoicing on Purim is the exact opposite of what occurred at the time of the decree. We are obligated to eat and drink, because the decree originally arose on account of Achashverosh's feast, where they derived pleasure from the banquet, and as Chazal said, they were drawn after the wine - for all the feasts of that wicked man were called by the name of wine: "When the heart of the king was merry with wine" (Esther 1:10), "And the king said to Esther at the banquet of wine" (Esther 5:6).
Therefore, "A person is obligated to become intoxicated on Purim until he does not know" - and the Sages expounded homiletically: b'furya (on Purim) and b'furya (in bed), for furya also means a bed. The Rambam writes that on the day of Purim, one should drink, become intoxicated, and fall asleep. People ask: from where did he derive that one should sleep, since this is not explicitly stated in the Gemara? The answer given is that he derived this from b'furya - in bed, meaning he should go to sleep. And the simple intent of the Rambam is so that he will not lose his senses: if you drink, you might act foolishly, so go to sleep, for wine is strong and sleep dissipates it. Furthermore, this corresponds to Haman, who "fell upon the couch" - you too should fall upon the bed.
Now, regarding what Chazal said - "until he does not know between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai" - a difficulty arises: if one says "cursed is Mordechai and blessed is Haman," he is uttering a falsehood, for Mordechai's portion is in holiness and Haman's portion is in defilement, and the Torah commands: "Distance yourself from a false matter" (Shemot 23:7). Indeed, some wished to explain that "until" (ad) is exclusive - meaning one should drink until reaching this threshold, but stop before crossing it. Yet let us examine another way to understand this.
Chazal remarked on the verse, "And Esther found favor in the eyes of all who beheld her" (Esther 2:15), that to each person she appeared as a member of his own nation. There are seventy nations aside from Israel, meaning that seventy falsehoods were spoken there. We too drink wine - yayin (wine) having the gematria of seventy - and utter one falsehood, corresponding to those seventy falsehoods, for everything we do serves as a remembrance of what took place back then.
Furthermore, what the nations said was not an outright lie, for she truly appeared to each as one of his own people, and they were compelled in their perception - looking at her facial features, each thought she belonged to his own nation. Here too, when a person says "blessed is Haman" in a state of drunkenness, he is compelled by his altered state of mind. Nor is it completely false, since Haman brought Israel to repentance; in a certain sense there is an aspect of "blessed is Haman," in that he brought us back in teshuvah (and the children would say: he brought us Purim!). Likewise, "cursed is Mordechai" is not entirely baseless: Mordechai descended from Shimei who cursed David, and it is written: "A causeless curse shall not come" (Mishlei 26:2) - which is also read homiletically as lo tavo, "it shall come upon him," meaning it returns to the one who cursed. In the first chapter of Megillah (12b-13a), the Congregation of Israel says: "See what the tribe of Yehudah did to me, for had David slain Shimei, Mordechai would not have been born, who brought distress upon Israel." Thus, according to that view, since there was no actual idolatry involved but only a symbol, there was a grievance against Mordechai for provoking Haman. It turns out that the curse Shimei uttered ultimately rebounded onto his descendant, and from a certain perspective - though it is difficult to utter - it is not a total falsehood.
אִם־עַל־הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב יִכָּתֵב לְאַבְּדָם וַעֲשֶׂרֶת אֲלָפִים כִּכַּר־כֶּסֶף אֶשְׁקוֹל עַל־יְדֵי עֹשֵׂי הַמְּלָאכָה לְהָבִיא אֶל־גִּנְזֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ (ג, ט) - "If it pleases the king, let it be written that they be destroyed, and I will weigh ten thousand silver talents into the hands of those who perform the work, to bring into the king's treasuries" (Esther 3:9).
Corresponding to the ten thousand talents of silver that Haman offered to weigh out, we do not scrutinize recipients with Purim funds. Incidentally, this is one of the wonders of the Megillah. People enumerate several miracles in it: a miracle that a Persian hosted a lavish feast; a miracle that he was willing to forgo ten thousand talents of silver; and a miracle that "Esther did not reveal her people or her kindred" - reading the Megillah takes half an hour, and for that entire half hour Esther remains silent, without pause.
וַיַּעַשׂ הַמֶּלֶךְ מִשְׁתֶּה גָדוֹל לְכׇל־שָׂרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו אֵת מִשְׁתֵּה אֶסְתֵּר וַהֲנָחָה לַמְּדִינוֹת עָשָׂה וַיִּתֵּן מַשְׂאֵת כְּיַד הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ (ב, יח) - "Then the king made a great banquet for all his princes and his servants, Esther's banquet; and he granted a remission of tax to the provinces, and gave gifts according to the bounty of the king" (Esther 2:18).
And corresponding to "and gave gifts according to the bounty of the king" - Chazal said: He sent gifts (pardeshnei), yet she still did not reveal it to him. He sent gifts to the ministers so that Esther would show gratitude and reveal her people. His calculation was that the ministers represented the provinces - in modern terms, ambassadors - and perhaps when she saw him honoring the ambassador of her homeland, she would be moved to disclose her origins. Yet it was to no avail. Corresponding to this, we are obligated in mishloach manot, sending portions one to another.
לֹא־הִגִּידָה אֶסְתֵּר אֶת־עַמָּהּ וְאֶת־מוֹלַדְתָּהּ כִּי מׇרְדֳּכַי צִוָּה עָלֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תַגִּיד׃ (ב, י) - "Esther had not revealed her people or her kindred, for Mordechai had charged her that she should not reveal it" (Esther 2:10).
And sending portions (Mishloach Manot) comes to reveal the miracle that the Holy One, blessed be He, performed for us. For had Esther revealed her people and her kindred, everyone would have been jealous of her just as Haman was toward Vashti, and she would not have survived to stand in the breach at the time of the decree. For had she revealed it, they would once again have made a feast, these saying, "The women of our nation are the most beautiful," and those saying, "The women of our nation are the most beautiful," and Ahasuerus would have said: "The vessel I use is Jewish, and she is more beautiful than all of them; let them bring her wearing the royal crown" - and she would have refused and been killed, and the cycle would repeat itself.
כַּיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר־נָחוּ בָהֶם הַיְּהוּדִים מֵאֹיְבֵיהֶם וְהַחֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר נֶהְפַּךְ לָהֶם מִיָּגוֹן לְשִׂמְחָה וּמֵאֵבֶל לְיוֹם טוֹב לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָם יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה וּמִשְׁלוֹחַ מָנוֹת אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיֹנִים׃ (ט, כב) - As the days on which the Jews rested from their enemies, and the month that was turned for them from sorrow to joy and from mourning to a holiday, to make them days of feasting and joy, and sending portions to one another and gifts to the poor. (9:22)
Our Sages, of blessed memory, said: Two portions to one person, and one gift to one poor person. The reason for this is wondrous: Ahasuerus remitted the poll tax from the nations in honor of Esther so that she would reveal her people, but she did not reveal it; and he likewise sent gifts to the ministers in her honor, but she did not reveal it. It turns out that the prominent figures and the ministers received two benefits: the gifts and the tax exemption; whereas the poor received only one benefit - the tax exemption, but they did not receive gifts. For this reason, "to one another" requires two portions, while for the poor, one gift to each.
וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וַתִּלְבַּשׁ אֶסְתֵּר מַלְכוּת וַתַּעֲמֹד בַּחֲצַר בֵּית־הַמֶּלֶךְ הַפְּנִימִית נֹכַח בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהַמֶּלֶךְ יוֹשֵׁב עַל־כִּסֵּא מַלְכוּתוֹ בְּבֵית הַמַּלְכוּת נֹכַח פֶּתַח הַבָּיִת׃ (ה, א) - And it came to pass on the third day that Esther donned royal apparel and stood in the inner court of the king's palace, opposite the king's palace; and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, facing the entrance of the house. (5:1)
Furthermore, it is a mitzvah to wear Shabbat and Yom Tov clothes, as recorded in the Shulchan Aruch, because Esther found favor in the king's eyes when she came dressed in distinguished garments; and furthermore, in reference to "and Esther donned royalty," the very opposite of what Mordechai did: "and put on sackcloth and ashes."
בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא נָדְדָה שְׁנַת הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר לְהָבִיא אֶת־סֵפֶר הַזִּכְרֹנוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים וַיִּהְיוּ נִקְרָאִים לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ (ו, א) - On that night the king's sleep was disturbed, and he ordered the book of records, the chronicles, to be brought, and they were read before the king. (6:1)
And since their sleep was disturbed at the time of the decree - "the king's sleep was disturbed," sleep was disturbed both above and below - for this reason we remain awake through these nights. In our days, we have merited to see this spread widely: there are study programs on the night of Purim, and here in Beit Eliyahu as well, kollel scholars study all night or a significant portion of it. And we have a tradition cited in the name of the Chatam Sofer that one who learns from the night reading of the Megillah until the daytime reading of the Megillah is assured of the World to Come. This is by no means simple, and it is a tremendous merit to engage in Torah on the night of Purim.
וַתֹּאמֶר לוֹ זֶרֶשׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ וְכׇל־אֹהֲבָיו יַעֲשׂוּ־עֵץ גָּבֹהַּ חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה וּבַבֹּקֶר אֱמֹר לַמֶּלֶךְ וְיִתְלוּ אֶת־מׇרְדֳּכַי עָלָיו וּבֹא־עִם־הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל־הַמִּשְׁתֶּה שָׂמֵחַ וַיִּיטַב הַדָּבָר לִפְנֵי הָמָן וַיַּעַשׂ הָעֵץ׃ (ה, יד) - Then his wife Zeresh and all his friends said to him, "Let a gallows fifty cubits high be made, and in the morning speak to the king that Mordechai may be hanged upon it; then go merrily with the king to the banquet." The thing pleased Haman, and he made the gallows. (5:14)
And corresponding to the making of the gallows that Haman prepared for Mordechai, because he lent an ear to his wife's counsel, for this reason we eat pastries called Oznei Haman (hamentaschen). For the core of the miracle came about because of the construction of the gallows, which provoked the king's wrath to say, "Hang him upon it." She told him to prepare a gallows and speak to the king in the morning - and that was the ear he bent; therefore, we eat Oznei Haman.
And corresponding to Haman's hands, which constructed a gallows fifty cubits high, people make a point of performing physical acts of celebration and joy, each place according to its custom. It is recorded that on Purim they had many styles of celebration: they would jump over fires, fashion an effigy of Haman and burn it, write "Haman" on slips of paper and blot them out - all of them physical actions performed with the hands, in commemoration of the fact that Haman built the gallows with his hands.
Furthermore, one gives charity even to gentiles. Seemingly, the mitzvot of Purim are all about the unity of Israel, so what do gentiles have to do with this charity? However, the galbanum (chelbonah) has a foul odor, yet Scripture counted it among the spices of the incense (ketoret) - and "chelbonah" has the same numerical value (gematria) as "Haman." Here too, we include the gentiles and give them charity. There is a profound secret in this, beyond the reason that Haman brought about Israel's repentance. Whoever wishes may consult Sefer HaKavanot, where the matter of the galbanum and the eleven spices is explained - and why there are not ten, for corresponding to holiness there ought to be ten - and there the matter is elaborated at length, and "the words of a wise man's mouth are gracious."
We learned the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya regarding Esther's action - "Perhaps the Omnipresent will take note and perform a miracle for us." The Maharsha explained that she sought to bring the situation to the extreme of "there is none remaining, shut up or left" (efes atzur ve'azuv), in accordance with the principle that "we do not take fleeting life into account" when death is certain. The Zera Shimshon questioned this, noting that at the time Haman was invited danger was no longer certain, and therefore explained differently: based on the principle that "whoever oppresses Israel becomes a leader," Haman attained greatness as a reward for the repentance he prompted in Israel - and thus Esther sought to draw him close in order to awaken the merit of Israel's repentance before the Omnipresent. He likewise explained "Be not far from me, for trouble is near; for there is none to help" as referring to the moment she entered before the king, where death was certain and we set aside the certain in favor of the uncertain. From here we also understand why "the reverse occurred" (venahafoch hu) rather than a mere annulment of the decree: so that the door would not be locked before penitents, and to teach us that the fasts and prayers - repentance out of love - were what transformed willful sins into merits and sorrow into joy. Finally, we saw how all the mitzvot of the day - the feast and the wine, Purim money, mishlo'ach manot and gifts to the poor, royal attire, nighttime Torah study, oznei Haman (hamantaschen), and the acts of joy - are all an exact inversion of the events of the decree, a commemoration of the miracle and the repentance that brought it about.