Post date: Mar 13, 2014 4:35:43 AM
“Kisav hadas…l’haros es Esther ul’hagid lah”
A copy of the text…to show Esther and to inform her
(4:8)
If Mordechai had ordered Hasach to tell Esther about the decree, why did he bother to also send a written copy of the decree to her? Additionally, later (in 7:4) when Esther pleaded to Achashveirosh, why did she say “Vi’ilu la’avadim ul’shfachos nimkarnu hecherashti” (had we been sold as slaves and servant-girls, I would have kept quiet)? What did she mean by this?
R. Zvi Fleisher explains that when Haman recited the contents of the edict to Achashveirosh, the written word “L’avdam” (spelled with an Aleph, meaning to destroy) might have been heard by Achashveirosh as “L’avdam” (spelled with an Eiyen, meaning to enslave). Achashveirosh’s mistaken understanding might have been that he had simply allowed Haman to enslave the Jews, when in fact the decree was to destroy the Jews. The written edict had to be shown to Esther so that she could see it with her own eyes, and then passionately present the information as only one with first-hand information can.
[Zvi Fleisher @ shemayisrael.com]
“V’Haman nidchaf el beiso avel vachafui rosh”
And Haman hurried home, despondent and with his head covered
(6:12)
Most of us are familiar with the Gemara (Megilah 16a) that tells us that as Haman was leading Mordechai through the streets of Shushan, Haman’s daughter emptied a chamber pot onto him. Because of her bird’s eye view, she was unable to recognize who was below until it was too late, and that she committed suicide out of desperation. So Haman was in mourning (Avel) over the death of his daughter, and his head was covered (Chafui Rosh) in the refuse that his daughter had thrown onto him.
The Yalkut Shimoni and Rokeach tell us that we see a hint to this in the Pasuk by analyzing the first five words in our quoted phrase. First let’s look at the Sofei Teivos (final letters) of the first three words:
v’HamaN: Nun
nidchaF: Fey
eL: Lamed
These letters spell the word Nafal (fell). The fourth word is “Beiso” which could be re-vowelized to be read “Bito” (his daughter). The fifth word is “Avel,” which means mourning. So, we can easily see that Haman’s daughter fell to her death resulting in his mourning for her.
[Inside Purim, p.262]
The Gri”z Halevi Brisker questions the order of the words in the Pasuk such that Avel comes before Chafui Rosh when the opposite order would seemingly be more logical. He answers his own question using a Tosfos from Baba Kama (16a) which deals with a question of liability on the part of two people. Tosfos says that if A threw a rock perfectly at an object, but before the rock hit the object, B destroyed the object, B is liable. However, if A threw the actual object, but B was able to destroy the object before it impacted from the throw, A is liable.
Based on this, the Gri”z Halevi Brisker proposes that following: Haman’s daughter probably dumped the refuse from very high up. As it was falling, Haman looked up, she recognized him, and realizing what she had done, immediately threw herself out the window. Both the refuse and Haman’s daughter were simultaneously falling. Since the damage inflicted when throwing something at an object is only finalized upon impact, Haman was not yet a Chafui Rosh. However, Haman’s daughter was herself an object in flight, and as taught by Tosfos, is to be considered destroyed even before the actual impact. Based on this, we can understand why the Pasuk labels Haman an Avel before describing him as a Chafui Rosh.
[Zvi Fleisher @ shemayisrael.com]