Some interesting recent shiurim

First, Rav Herschel Schacter on Vayakhel-Pekudei, from last year.


The first ten minutes are about the equitable division of aliyos across parshiyos, and how maftir counts and could affect this. And how some say if add hosafos, redivide the breaks. And how some say not to add hosafos.

Then, at the 10 minute mark, something of particular interest to me, whether gematria is a "real" middah shehaTorah nidreshet bah. It isn't, but is instead a parperet lachachma, and so various derivations of laws (such as number of number of melachos on Shabbos).

Fifteen minute mark, regarding  (Shemot 35)

כו  וְכָל-הַנָּשִׁים--אֲשֶׁר נָשָׂא לִבָּן אֹתָנָה, בְּחָכְמָה:  טָווּ, אֶת-הָעִזִּים.

26 And all the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom spun the goats' hair.

and Rashi writes that the women spun when it was still attached to the animal

spun the goat hair: This constituted a superior skill, for they [the women] spun it on the backs of the goats. -[from Shab. 74b]

טוו את העזים: היא היתה אומנות יתירה, שמעל גבי העזים טווין אותן:

That gemara in Shabbos 74b is:

SHEARING WOOL AND BLEACHING. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: He who spins wool from off the animal's back on the Sabbath incurs three sin-offerings, one on account of shearing, another on account of hackling, and the third on account of spinning.¹³  R. Kahana said: Neither shearing, hackling, nor spinning is [done] in this manner.¹⁴  But is it not so? Surely it was taught in the name of R. Nehemiah: It was washed [direct] on the goats and spun on the goats:¹⁵  which proves that spinning direct from the animal is designated spinning? — Superior skill is different.¹⁶

Or, in Hebrew / Aramaic:

הגוזז את הצמר והמלבנו:

אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן הטווה צמר שעל גבי בהמה בשבת חייב שלש חטאות אחת משום גוזז ואחת משום מנפץ ואחת משום טווה רב כהנא אמר אין דרך גזיזה בכך ואין דרך מנפץ בכך ואין דרך טווי בכך ולא והתניא משמיה דרבי נחמיה שטוף בעזים וטוו בעזים אלמא טוויה על גבי בהמה שמה טוויה חכמה יתירה שאני

(R Yonasan Eibeshitz, because of niddah, wouldn't be mekabel tuma). And at the 18:20 minute mark, the gemara Shabbos asks what if someone weaves on Shabbos while it is attached to the animal? And the answer is that it kil'achar yad, because mileches machsheves asra Torah. But meleches machsheves is by the Mishkan, and is derived from there to Shabbos. And weaving was done in the manner described above, on the animal. So how could you say that it isn't meleches machsheves?! Rashi and Tosafot have different approaches to understanding the gemara's answer (Rashi: difference between a master craftsman, who is chayav and a regular person, who is not. Meanwhile Tosafot locally explains that batla daatah etzel kol adam. So one could say that specifically in the Mishkan, for the reason mentioned, it was consider normal, as everyone was doing it this way.)

I say: perhaps we could provide an alternate answer to the setama degemara (who pulled this contradiction with Rabbi Nechemia from Shabbos 99a, rather than this idea being initially local to the sugya): that this is a legitimate dispute among Tannaim, and Rabbi Yochanan holds like Rabbi Nechemiah, and Rav Kahana holds like the Chachamim. The gemara on 99a reads:

Our Rabbis taught: The lower curtains [were made] of blue [wool], purple [wool]. crimson thread and fine linen,²  whilst the upper ones were of goats' [hair] manufacture; and greater wisdom [skill] is mentioned in connection with the upper than in connection with the lower. For whereas of the lower ones it is written, And all the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands;³  in reference to the upper ones it is written, And all the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom spun the goats;⁴  and it was taught in R. Nehemiah's name: It was washed [direct] on the goats and spun on the goats.⁵

But the linkage between braytot is provided by the gemara, with the first brayta leaving the specific nature of the wisdom unspecified.

At the 63 minute mark, about whether we accept archaeological evidence in determining halacha. In terms of the tzitz, which was seen in Rome (yet which the Rambam paskens against the eyewitness report), two lines or one line. And an explanation why. In general we do. For instance, Rabba bar bar Chana should have seen the tzitzis of the generation of the wilderness, and they could have determined halacha on this basis. While Rav Soloveitchik seems to oppose integrating archaeological evidence, and has an explanation to that gemara, Rav Schachter appears to hold otherwise bepashtus.

From this year, a fascinating shiur in the halachos of Purim.

In a leap year: when does one observe a yartzeit, when does one read the megila, and when does one recite al hanisim? When Purim falls on Sunday, when does one fast? Is it proper to handle a megila with bare hands? Should one recite the final pasuk by heart, prior to the ba'al koreh? Does one recite the final bracha without a minyan? Should multiple readers, recite the megila? Should women read for themselves? Can one recite the first pasuk by heart? Can a baki, listen to the megila, without a minyan? Does one need bread, by the meal? Does one need a meal at night? Does one need a shaliach, for shalach manos? Can one recite a shehechianu on Purim, without fulfilling any of the mitzvot? Does one need to recite himself,the ten sons of Haman.

As I understand it, sending the mishloach manos by shaliach is not necessary (you can invite the person to a meal), and if you do send, sending specifically by a gadol is a silly thing to insist upon, because this is all premised on the idea that you yourself giving it would be invalid, so why then insist on shlucho shel adam kemoso.

As a general halachic approach, he seems to take the approach that one should not enter into halachically questionable areas (where it is a matter of dispute, or there is a lower level of fulfillment). For example, having a meal crossing over between Rosh Chodesh and after. Either finish before or start after, vehistalek min hasefek. And especially not in order to obtain dubious gains. For example, splitting up the laining among multiple people, because it is more exciting that way, but there is a machlokes in Shulach Aruch if you are yotzei bedieved. And this is apparently common in women's megillah reading. So too, entering into the argument of whether ten women count as a minyan for the purpose of megillah, such that you are only fulfilling bedieved. And you wouldn't say the beracha of harav et riveinu.

I wonder about this though. When Rabbi Lookstein splits up the megillah among students, despite it not being halachically optimal, it is legitimate and justified, because it is for kiruv, to keep the students committed. So perhaps we can then say that sociologically speaking, within certain communities, women's megillah readings are also at present necessary, as a different type of kiruv. While I think there is merit to this line of reasoning, I could also imagine rejoinders to it. For instance, for a specific subgroup of tenuously committed Jews, it is something of a horaas shaah, with targeted divergence from the norm and use of seichel to find the best approach for this limited scenario. But there is no danger of this becoming mainstream practice. But if splitting up aliyos is part of the way things are done in general in this general institution of women's megillah readings, then it is mainstream practice, and it is a permanent approach rather than an admitted horaas shaah. Or alternatively, perhaps within the wider cultural phenomenon of various groups asserting that halacha is an unfair patriarchal system established by men (meaning humans and meaning males), adopting non-"optimal" halachic practices and establishing that as a lechatchila halacha (or even bedieved practice) in order to satisfy this motivation would not be considered a laudatory goal.

Rabbi Hayyim Angel, in Megillat Esther: What they didn't teach us in day school. And Mekoros for it.


The actual discussion is at the 7:20 mark. Step 1: Don't think midrash is in the text. Pull down in order to build up. Examples:

1. Haman's ancestor: Amalek. From Agagi. (Agag was perfectly normal Persian name.)
2. Mordechai: From Shaul. Ben Kish. (Could say going back only 3 generations. Ibn Ezra: Why not say ben Shaul?)
3. Religious state of Jews at the time as bad. Temple vessels, celebrating non-rebuilding. (But maybe just celebrating power of the king. But see how they listen to their leaders and fast. [I don't find this convincing. They knew at that point that there was danger to their life.] Haman accuses them of following their own laws. Opposite of assimilation. Gives midrash to emphasize this peshat point. Gives midrash from gemara in which Rashbi rejects idea suggested by students that punishment for Jews of world for participation of party. But dealing with q of why did they deserve it. Nothing distinctly Jewish in megillah.
4. Why didn't Mordechai bow? Idol around his neck. Ibn Ezra says the same to explain it. (But not in text. Pagan festival is drawn date. But irrelevant. [Couldn't it be relevant on peshat level but only obvious to immediate readers in that generation?]) We have no idea why he is doing it.

Rebuild. Whole chapter of initial party to create vacancy for queen. Taxes in chapter ten, why? He suggests nobody matters (Mordechai vs. Haman) but Achashverosh. Hamelech appears statistically significant. Hashem named zero times. Hester Panim. Achashverosh replaces God. Reread Achashverosh's glory instead of that of Hashem. So we should be heartbroken that this is not about the Bet Hamikdash. Fasting to plead for lives. With Achashverosh rather than Yom Kippur. Palace instead of Bet HaMikdash. That is the point of all those midrashim. Mordechai paraded around. Yet still slated for destruction, so doesn't matter. Haman hanged, and king feels better, rather than reaction of Jews. Death decree still in effect. No Sasson until Mordechai has king's ring. Midrash of Ish Tzar VaOyev, she started pointing to the king. He is the real culprit, while Haman is the front. Midrash on Hu Achashverosh, from beginning to end. No character transformation, despite what you might think. So Mordechai didn't bow, fighting not just against Haman but against Achashverosh. Representative of world-view and how morality in world should be. Ch 10 is that still servants of Achashverosh, no better off.

How do we know that Mordechai married Esther?

There is a famous midrash which changes much of the dynamic in the megillah, that Mordechai and Esther were husband and wife. The midrash is based on this pasuk in the megillah:

ז  וַיְהִי אֹמֵן אֶת-הֲדַסָּה, הִיא אֶסְתֵּר בַּת-דֹּדוֹ--כִּי אֵין לָהּ, אָב וָאֵם; וְהַנַּעֲרָה יְפַת-תֹּאַר, וְטוֹבַת מַרְאֶה, וּבְמוֹת אָבִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ, לְקָחָהּ מָרְדֳּכַי לוֹ לְבַת.

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.

On Megillah 13a:

תנא משום ר"מ אל תקרי לבת אלא לבית וכן הוא אומר (שמואל ב יב) ולרש אין כל כי אם כבשה אחת קטנה אשר קנה ויחיה ותגדל עמו ועם בניו יחדו מפתו תאכל ומכוסו תשתה ובחיקו תשכב ותהי לו כבת משום דבחיקו תשכב הוות ליה <לבת> [כבת] אלא <לבית> [כבית] הכי נמי לבית

Thus, in a brayta in the name of Rabbi Meir, we should reread levat as levayit, "as a household", meaning as a wife. And there is Biblical precedent for such reinterpretation.

However, this by itself is not sufficient to produce a midrash. How many times does the word bat appear in Tanach? When we see that Yocheved is bat Levi, does this mean that she was the wife of Levi? When Avraham defends himself saying:

 וְגַם-אָמְנָה, אֲחֹתִי בַת-אָבִי הִוא--אַךְ, לֹא בַת-אִמִּי; וַתְּהִי-לִי, לְאִשָּׁה. 

does he really mean that Sarah is the wife of his father?! Obviously not. There must be some trigger which would influence Rabbi Meir to say this.

I gave it some thought and came up with the following:

1) The word לְקָחָהּ might be a prompt. Elsewhere, lakach is used to denote marriage. This then matches the prompt in Shmuel Beit where it states ובחיקו תשכב.

2) More importantly, there is the jarring statement that וְהַנַּעֲרָה יְפַת-תֹּאַר, וְטוֹבַת מַרְאֶה. Why, when speaking of her parents' deaths and Mordechai taking her, would it be relevant that she was of beautiful form and fair to look on? He should have adopted her as a daughter nonetheless, even if she was of green complexion! Rather, this would be a reason he would marry her, and thus stands as a prompt for Rabbi Meir's derasha.

Of course, on a peshat level, saying how beautiful she was makes perfect sense, since we had just been told that the king was in search of fair maidens to make his queen:

ב  וַיֹּאמְרוּ נַעֲרֵי-הַמֶּלֶךְ, מְשָׁרְתָיו:  יְבַקְשׁוּ לַמֶּלֶךְ נְעָרוֹת בְּתוּלוֹת, טוֹבוֹת מַרְאֶה.

2 Then said the king's servants that ministered unto him: 'Let there be sought for the king young virgins fair to look on;

However, the scope of statements such as וְהַנַּעֲרָה יְפַת-תֹּאַר, וְטוֹבַת מַרְאֶה are much narrower in the midrashic world. We don't look to context of surrounding pesukim to understand the import. That would be significance minimalism and context maximalism. Midrash is significance maximalist and context minimalist.

How did Vashti grow a tail?

Check out Judaism.StackExchange.com for a whole slew of questions and answers pertaining to Purim.

Here is a question I answered just the other night:

In מגילה דף יב it gives two reasons as to why Vashti did not go to Achashveirosh when he requested her to the party. The first reason is that Vashti had Tzarat (a metaphysical skin affliction). The second is that גבריאל (the angel) made her have a tail.

I have a few questions:

1) What is the difference between these two answers? They appear to be some physical affliction that prevented her from going. If I have one, I don't need the other.

2) How does a person grow a tail? Why would the Malach choose to make her have a tail? Is there some significance?

3) Is this to be taken literally?

4) Why in the second answer is גבריאל mentioned? Why didn't he bring about the Tzarat?

Here is the text of the גמרא:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת מגילה דף יב/ב

מאי טעמא לא אתאי אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא מלמד שפרחה בה צרעת במתניתא תנא בא גבריאל ועשה לה זנב

My answer:

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:

וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר-נִגְזַר עָלֶיהָ

The word nigzar also occurs by Uzziah, a king who brought ketores, though he was not a kohen, and was stricken with leprosy.

Meanwhile, the brayta presumably derives the tail from some other source. According to Tosafot HaRosh, it is the word עָלֶיהָ in the same phrase. Written with an aleph instead of an ayin, it would be read alya, which means a tail.

2) A person grows a tail suddenly as a result of a miracle. While I'm sure some people explain the significance of specifically a tail, I would personally note that the rules of midrashic interpretation will restrict the details of the midrash to specifically that which can be deduced from the pasuk via midrashic rules. This was a means of suddenly marring her beauty, such that (based on the context of the gemara) though she would normally have loved to lewdly display her naked body, here she was embarrassed.

3) It depends. I would say yes, the rabbis who wrote this did intend them literally, though we do not have to agree that it historically occurred. Alternatively, it is meant metaphorically. See my discussions of this here and here.

4) I don't know. Different midrashic authors might mention different details. I don't know what specifically brings Gavriel in here, or if there is a running tradition of Gavriel secretly guiding all sorts of events in the megillah. For example, see Megillah 16a, where Shamshai the scribe erased what Mordechai had done to save the king from Bigtan and Teresh, but the angel Gavriel came and rewrote it. Note also that the entire second answer is in square brackets in our gemaras. I am not sure what that means, or what alternate girsa exists there.

Some more Minchas Shai on Megillat Esther.

In Esther 1:4:

ד  בְּהַרְאֹתוֹ, אֶת-עֹשֶׁר כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ, וְאֶת-יְקָר, תִּפְאֶרֶת גְּדוּלָּתוֹ; יָמִים רַבִּים, שְׁמוֹנִים וּמְאַת יוֹם.

4 when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty, many days, even a hundred and fourscore days.

Minchas Shai writes:

בְּהַרְאֹתוֹ -- is chaser vav [J: after the aleph].

וְאֶת-יְקָר -- Ibn Ezra in Sefer Tzachot brings this example amongst those with patach (יְקַר) and so wrote Rabbi Yehuda, that it has a patach, because it is a construct form [the honor of his excellent majesty]. And Rabbi Yona [Ibn Janach] wrote that it has a kametz (יְקָר). And it is written in the Michlol [of Radak] page 198 that so is found in precise sefarim with kametz, and so does the author of the Masoret bring it [in the list] with those with kametz yet are in construct form. And in the Shorashim [of Radak] he wrote 'and we found it in a few precise sefarim with a kametz and in a few of them with a patach.

תִּפְאֶרֶת גְּדוּלָּתוֹ -- [Josh: to interject, an וּ is a long vowel, while an ֻ is a short vowel. Long vowels are often in closes syllables, meaning consonant vowel consonant, while long vowels are often in open syllables, meaning consonant vowel. The hard dagesh in the lamed is an example of gemination, meaning the doubling of the consonant, so that the lamed serves as both the close of the previous syllable and the start of the next syllable. This seems strange, for why geminate the lamed to close the previous syllable, when the previous vowel is long? On to Minchas Shai.] In the precise texts, the lamed has a dagesh [to geminate it] and [yet, before it the vowel /oo/]  is melei vav [making it a long syllable]. And there is a Masorah upon it that there is none other found.

And Rabbi Eliezer of Germeiza [the Rokeach] wrote [about this unexpected vav]: גְּדוּלָּתוֹ  is malei vav, for on every day he [Achashverosh] would show them six of his tisboriyot, that is to say, storehouses. And so too is שְׁמוֹנִים malei [Josh: it occurs 8 times malei and 14 times chaser in Tanach] to teach that they were 'full' [to be able] to show six storehouses every day. End quote.

And this is in accordance with the words of the Sages in Shemot Rabba perek 9 and Midrash Esther Rabbati: Six nisin would he open and show them every day. And the meaning of nisin, R' Naftali explains as types of rooms, and in Matnat Kehuna he explains storehouses, and in Yalkut it is gores it as tishboryot, and these are storehouses, and in another lengthy Targum I found written explicitly [in Aramaic] 'six treasuries he showed to them'. And in parashat Vaera, it is gores it as nisin. And deduces six from that which is written [six terms]:

1. עֹשֶׁר
2.  כְּבוֹד
3.  מַלְכוּתוֹ
4. וְאֶת-יְקָר
5. תִּפְאֶרֶת
6. גְּדוּלָּתוֹ

Behold there are six. And so is evident from the long Targum."

I'll just add that this is the classic approach of remez, to find additional Scriptural allusion to details which were already darshened by more classic means.
a

Torah Codes in megillat Esther

The megillah begins:

א  וַיְהִי, בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ:  הוּא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, הַמֹּלֵךְ מֵהֹדּוּ וְעַד-כּוּשׁ--שֶׁבַע וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה, מְדִינָה.	1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus--this is Ahasuerus who reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces--
ב  בַּיָּמִים, הָהֵם--כְּשֶׁבֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, עַל כִּסֵּא מַלְכוּתוֹ, אֲשֶׁר, בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה.	2 that in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the castle,

Note the words I put in bolded red. In pasuk 1, "HaMolech" is written chaser. In pasuk 2, "Malchuto" is written malei vav. Here is what Minchas Shai has to say:

"1) HaMolech: is chaser vav.
2) Al Kisei Malchuto: In Midrash Rabbati, it is written consonantally מלכתו [J: with three dots under the khaf]. To explain, pronounce it melachto. [J: that he sat upon his production]. And this is as stated later, that he desired to sit upon the throne of Shlomo and they did not allow him. They said to him, any king who is not kosdmokartor (Greek kosmo-krator, lord of the world) in the word, to explain a ruler in the entire world, may not sit upon it. He arose and fashioned for himself a throne in its pattern. This is what is stated, al kisei malchuto, but melachto is written. End quote. And also bishnat shalosh lemolcho, they darshen it as a language of melacha."

End quote of Minchas Shai.

The text of Esther Rabba in question:

This strongly implies that the author of Midrash Ester Rabbati had before him the word malchuto written chaser vav. One could say, as Minchas Shai sometimes does, that the midrash means that we should read it "as if" it were written malei. But I don't think this is so. Rabbi Kohen, citing Rabbi Azarya, actually had the word chaser.

What does this matter? Well, despite being a fascinating derasha in its own right, it also possibly changes the number of letters in Megillat Esther, from 12,111 to 12,110.

See Minchas Shai for other instances where the full or deficient spelling is in question, which would further change the letter count of the Megillah.

Why does this matter? For the Torah codes, of course!

Here is one such Torah code, made by Rabbi Weissmandl, starting from the word esater in Bereshit:

יד  הֵן גֵּרַשְׁתָּ אֹתִי הַיּוֹם, מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה, וּמִפָּנֶיךָ, אֶסָּתֵר; וְהָיִיתִי נָע וָנָד, בָּאָרֶץ, וְהָיָה כָל-מֹצְאִי, יַהַרְגֵנִי.

14 Behold, Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the land; and from Thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth; and it will come to pass, that whosoever findeth me will slay me.'

An example concerning Megillas Esther

Perhaps even more amazingly, given that Rabbi Weissmandl was operating without benefit of a computer, it is known that he made a number of findings concerning Megillas Esther using skip distances of 12,111 letters, the exact number of letters in Megillas Esther. I was able to reconstruct one of these using a computer. If one starts with the first regular mem (as opposed to "final mem") in Bereishis 4:14, where the name Esther (vocalized differently) appears for the only time in the Torah, and counts at intervals of 12,111 letters, one finds spelled out the phrase "Megillas Esther."

-- Doron Witztum, Jewish Action, March, 1998

NOTE: While the article may give the impression there is a single 8 letter ELS with skip 12,111, there is only a four letter ELS with that skip (and a plain text occurrence of the name Esther).

I've seen this put forth in an accidentally slightly misleading way, that what was spelled out was Megillat Esther, rather than the rather short four letter "Megillat". E.g.:

Rabbi Weissmandl - a great Hungararian scholar and holocaust survivor - made a number of findings concerning Megillat Esther using skip distances of 12,111 letters - the exact number of letters in Megillat Esther. If one starts with the first regular mem (as opposed to the "final mem" ) in Bereishis 4:14, where the name Esther (vocalized differently) appears for the only time in the Torah, and count at intervals of 12,111 letters, one finds spelled out the phrase "Megillat Esther." Coincidence? I think not.

This was not the blogger's fault. She was echoing the article which gave the false impression that there was a single 8 letter ELS with skip 12,111 ("Megillat Esther") while really there was only a 4 letter ELS with skip 12,111 ("Megillat").

That it is four letters rather than the malei-spelled five letter מגילת is OK, given that in the few times the word is spelled in Tanach, it is chaser. Though I would have expected malei, and a five letter ELS would have made it less likely for the word to come about by mere chance.

There is another Torah code for Mordechai from Rav Weissmandl, IIRC, with a 12111 (I think) skip based on the words Mor Deror, which Chazal use as a remez to Mordechai in the Torah. And there is another, with Esther spelled out at skips of 12,111 from the beginning of Torah.

Here is the story, though with a slightly different number (12,196), such that I don't know which one is the right one for the number of letters in the Megillah.:

First-hand testimony from Rabbi Yaakov-Mordechai Greenwald:

Since the 1980's the phenomenon of Torah Codes has become both famous and controversial. I, personally, enjoyed the merit of having an association with Rabbi Michoel-Dov Weissmandl, the Torah sage from Hungary known as "the Father of Torah Codes." You should know that all his work was done in his head, without computers - he was truly a genius.

Once, in the 1950's, I visited him at His Mt. Kisco NY community in the month of Adar, a short time before Purim. He asked me, "Did I ever tell you how many letters there are in Megilat Esther?"

"No," I replied; "I have no idea."

"Well, I know," he continued. "I counted! There are 12,196 letters in it altogether."

"That's incredible," I responded. "But what do we do with this information? Is there significance to this number?"

He smiled. "Bring me a Chumash ["Five Books of Moses" in the original Hebrew]," he said. I brought one to him, whereupon he told me:

"Starting from the first instance of the letter alef (the third letter in the first word of the Torah - ed.), if you count an interval equal to the number of letters in Megilat Esther--12,196--you arrive at a letter samech. If you continue another 12,196 letters you get to a letter tof; and if you keep going for another 12,196 you land on a letter reish. And, of course, alef-samech-tof-reish spells Esther! Is this not amazing?"

"It certainly is," I answered enthusiastically. And then I added with a grin, "but is there a connection to Mordechai too? Otherwise, he may feel bad."

He looked crestfallen. "I don't know. Yet. Try me again next year."

The next Adar I made sure to visit Rabbi Weissmandl again. "What about Mordechai?" I asked.

"I also found a hint to Mordechai," he announced. "Our sages pointed out that there is a hint to Mordechai in the Torah, where the verse stares, 'You shall take the finest fragrances: 'mor dror…' [myrrh]."

['Mor dror' has the same first two syllables as 'Mordechai,' and its Aramaic translation by Onkeles, 'mira dichya,' has the same consonants in the same order as 'Mordechai.' The verse is Exodus 30:23, which is in the Torah portion that in most years is read in the week in which Purim occurs! (Similarly, in that same Talmudic passage the sages identified a hint to Esther in Deuteronomy 31:18 and to Haman in Genesis 3:11.) -ed.]

He continued: "Now, if from the letter mem in mor dror in that verse you count forward the number of letters in the Megilah, you come to a reish. And if you keep counting successively 12,196 letters you will get a dalet and then a chofand then a yud - spelling out Mordechai! This is truly even more amazing."

The story there continues with a young woman, who was a brilliant computer scientist and mathematician, being persuaded by otherwise improbability of the Torah codes, and becoming religious as a result. And therefore, implicitly, so should you!

These Torah codes are in fact rather neat. And maybe they reflect Divine intent. Maybe. It becomes more problematic when people try using them to predict, or to make claims about reality, under the cover of Divine proclamation.

But despite these Torah code being rather neat, I don't know that I find this necessarily compelling as proof of Judaism and Torah. People don't realize it, but we humans often have a poor intuition about probability. For example, the birthday problem. What do you think is the probability that, in a group of 57 people, two share the same birthday? What about in a group of 23 people?

So too, the Torah Codes may seem compelling, and some mathematicians may even have given an explanation of how they indeed are. But other (frum) mathematicians have made counterarguments. My faith does not live or die by these Torah codes, and I think that is a good thing.

Some fun sources on the megillah

1. Yeshua Gedolah on Megillas Esther, by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz.

2. Gishmei Bracha and Torah Temimah on Megillas Esther, by R' Baruch HaLevi Epstein.

3. Meshech Chochma on Megillah.

4. Ibn Ezra with supercommentary Mechokekei Yehuda on Megillah.

5. Minchas Shai on the Megillah.

6. Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite on the megillah, for which you would need this djvu browser plugin. Some really wild stuff, I think, especially for a Karaite... I'm wondering if it is Purim Torah. Maybe not.

Why the ten thousand talents of silver?

Summary: Administrative expenses, I would suggest.

Post: As part of his proposal to destroy the Jews, Haman offers ten thousand talents of silver. Esther 3:9:

ט  אִם-עַל-הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב, יִכָּתֵב לְאַבְּדָם; וַעֲשֶׂרֶת אֲלָפִים כִּכַּר-כֶּסֶף, אֶשְׁקוֹל עַל-יְדֵי עֹשֵׂי הַמְּלָאכָה, לְהָבִיא, אֶל-גִּנְזֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ.

9 If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed; and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those that have the charge of the king's business, to bring it into the king's treasuries.'

Why this money? I think the typical, traditional understanding is that this is a form of bribe. He is not going to give it directly, but to those in charge of the king's business, to bring into the king's treasuries. Thus, the king becomes wealthier.

Another possibility occurred to me this morning. Did Achashverosh really micro-manage all 127 provinces / countries? My guess is that, in general, he let them govern themselves, though on occasion, his federal government issued a command which had to be heeded by all. But still, there were local laws, which might differ slightly from one place to another. This might well be peshat in the previous pasuk:

ח  וַיֹּאמֶר הָמָן, לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ--יֶשְׁנוֹ עַם-אֶחָד מְפֻזָּר וּמְפֹרָד בֵּין הָעַמִּים, בְּכֹל מְדִינוֹת מַלְכוּתֶךָ; וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכָּל-עָם, וְאֶת-דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים, וְלַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין-שֹׁוֶה, לְהַנִּיחָם.

8 And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus: 'There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from those of every people; neither keep they the king's laws; therefore it profiteth not the king to suffer them.

with the difference between "the laws of every people" and "the king's laws". In the megillah, only three times was a federal proclamation put out -- the first, after Vashti's rebellion, about how the women in each country should conduct themselves; the second, Haman's decree; and the third, the countering of Haman's decree by issuing a new, reversed decree.

These federal decrees took a lot of time, effort, and likely, expense. Consider what needed to be done. The decree needed to be written in the script of every province, in the language of every province. That was a lot of work for scribes and translators. Since a province was big, it is possible that there were also multiple copies of each of these letters that needed to be copied, and thus, plenty of work for scriveners. Then, they needed to send out messengers on the fastest steeds, all over the world.

One could imagine that there would be a tremendous expense associated with all of this. Thus, Haman offers to cover the expense, and to pay this money עַל-יְדֵי עֹשֵׂי הַמְּלָאכָה, to those who would do all of this work. Achashverosh declines to accept the money, not because he likes the concept of a bribe but he is a tremendous anti-Semite himself, but because he accepts Haman's profferred premise that it is in his own best interest to do away with this population, and so this is a normal administrative expense.

Complicating this interpretation is the stress upon the sum paid later in the megillah -- in perek 4:

ז  וַיַּגֶּד-לוֹ מָרְדֳּכַי, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר קָרָהוּ; וְאֵת פָּרָשַׁת הַכֶּסֶף, אֲשֶׁר אָמַר הָמָן לִשְׁקוֹל עַל-גִּנְזֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ ביהודיים (בַּיְּהוּדִים)--לְאַבְּדָם.

7 And Mordecai told him of all that had happened unto him, and the exact sum of the money that Haman had promised to pay to the king's treasuries for the Jews, to destroy them.

and in perek 7:

ד  כִּי נִמְכַּרְנוּ אֲנִי וְעַמִּי, לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרוֹג וּלְאַבֵּד; וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ, הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי--כִּי אֵין הַצָּר שֹׁוֶה, בְּנֵזֶק הַמֶּלֶךְ.  {ס}

4 for we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen, I had held my peace, for the adversary is not worthy that the king be endamaged.' {S}

Vay-hi in the days of Achashverosh

Summary: Regarding the deduction that any instance of vay denotes tragedy.

Post: In the previous post in this series, I presented the beginning of Agadat Esther. Now, I present the next segment. Some comments I embed within {curly brackets}. This is basically a retelling of the discussion in Bavli Megillah 10b, so I will just take it from there:

ויהי בימי אחשורוש אמר רבי לוי ואיתימא רבי יונתן דבר זה מסורת בידינו מאנשי כנסת הגדולה כל מקום שנאמר ויהי אינו אלא לשון צער (אסתר א) ויהי בימי אחשורוש הוה המן (רות א) ויהי בימי שפוט השופטים הוה רעב (בראשית ו) ויהי כי החל האדם לרוב וירא ה' כי רבה רעת האדם (בראשית יא) ויהי בנסעם מקדם הבה נבנה לנו עיר (בראשית יד) ויהי בימי אמרפל עשו מלחמה (יהושוע ה) ויהי בהיות יהושע ביריחו וחרבו שלופה בידו (יהושוע ו) ויהי ה' את יהושע וימעלו בני ישראל (שמואל א א) ויהי איש אחד מן הרמתים כי את חנה אהב וה' סגר רחמה (שמואל א ח) ויהי <כי> [כאשר] זקן שמואל ולא הלכו בניו בדרכיו (שמואל א יח) ויהי דוד לכל דרכיו משכיל [וה' עמו] ויהי שאול עוין את דוד (שמואל ב ז) ויהי כי ישב המלך בביתו רק אתה לא תבנה הבית והכתיב (ויקרא ט) ויהי ביום השמיני ותניא אותו היום היתה שמחה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא כיום שנבראו בו שמים וארץ כתיב הכא ויהי ביום השמיני וכתיב התם (בראשית א) ויהי <בקר> [ערב ויהי בקר] יום אחד הא שכיב נדב ואביהוא והכתיב (מלכים א ו) ויהי בשמונים שנה וארבע מאות שנה והכתיב (בראשית כט) ויהי כאשר ראה יעקב את רחל והכתיב ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אחד והאיכא שני והאיכא שלישי והאיכא טובא אמר רב אשי כל ויהי איכא הכי ואיכא הכי ויהי בימי אינו אלא לשון צער חמשה ויהי בימי הוו ויהי בימי אחשורוש ויהי בימי שפוט השופטים ויהי בימי אמרפל (ישעיהו ז) ויהי בימי אחז (ירמיהו א) ויהי בימי יהויקים 

Or, in English -- rather than translate, I am going to rely on the Point by Point Summary:

2) "VA'YEHI" CONNOTES PAIN

(a) (R. Levi): We have a tradition from Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah that 'va'Yehi' (and it was) always denotes pain"

1. "Va'Yehi bi'Ymei Achashverosh" there was Haman.
2. "Va'Yehi bi'Ymei Shefot ha'Shoftim" there was a famine.
3. "Va'Yehi that man began to multiply" Hash-m saw that great is the evil of man.
4. "Va'Yehi when they traveled from the east" - "Let us build a city.
5. "Va'Yehi In the days of Amrafel" they made war.
6. "Va'Yehi Yehoshua biYricho" - "His sword drawn in his hand."
7. "Va'Yehi Hash-m Im Yehoshua" - Benei Yisrael transgressed.
8. "Va'Yehi Ish me'Ramasayim" - Chanah was barren.
9. "Va'Yehi when Shmuel grew old" - "His sons did not go in his ways."
10. "Va'Yehi David was succeeding in all his ways and Hash-m was with him" - "Sha'ul put his eye on David".
11. "Va'Yehi when the king sat in his house" - "But you will not build the Beis ha'Mikdash."

(b) Question: But is says, "Va'Yehi on the eighth day (of Chanukas ha'Mishkan)"!

1. (Beraisa): That day there was a Simchah in front of Hash-m like the day Heaven and earth were created.
2. In both places it says "va'Yehi."

(c) Answer: Nadav and Avihu died.
(d) Question: "Va'Yehi in the 480th year (the Beis ha'Mikdash was completed)"!
(e) Question: "Va'Yehi when Yakov saw Rachel"!
(f) Question: "Va'Yehi evening and it was morning, one day"!
(g) Question: There is also the second day, the third day, and more!
(h) Answer (Rav Ashi):  "Va'Yehi" is sometimes good, sometimes painful. "Va'Yehi bi'Ymei is always pain. In five places it says "Va'Yehi bi'Ymei":

1. "Va'Yehi bi'Ymei Achashverosh", "Va'Yehi bi'Ymei Shefot ha'Shoftim", "Va'Yehi bi'Ymei Amrafel", "Va'Yehi bi'Ymei Achaz", and "Va'Yehi bi'Ymei Yehoyakim."

I am not sure if this really "saves" the masoret. If it is a tradition, it is a tradition! How can you change that? And if you change it, is it the minor change that Rabbi Levi, or Rabbi Yochanan, meant to say Vayhi biymei in his statement? If so, what sort of masorah do you need for this? We can examine those five cases and determine that indeed, there was pain introduced in context in each of those places! (Though admittedly Achaz might be a question.) The point of such a masorah would seem to be able to apply it, as a midrashic tool, to new cases. If sometimes it applies and sometimes not, then what good it is? How can we know. Also, I understand why vay hi would mean this -- it was 'woe'! But is there anything intrinsic to the word בימי that suggests woe?

I think the answer is that midrash is not in fact always systematic. Even though Shimon HaAmsuni darshened all ess-in in the Torah, and then disavowed it all when he found one he couldn't darshen, this does not have to be the case everywhere. Even though Chazal say that every na is leshon bakasha, they don't say that the prohibition to eat the korban Pesach na means that one cannot say "please" and must be rude while eating it. And there are na's that mean now. And not every mayim in the Torah means Torah; sometimes it could be water. Would you have a hava amina that Yosef's brothers would throw him into a pit with a sefer Torah on it, that the Torah must inform us otherwise. That the mesorah says כל מקום could simply mean to apply this to the general case, but not to the obviously inapplicable cases.

(In terms of Yaakov, though, he cried when he saw Rachel! Pashut peshat is that this was in joy, but various midrashim put this as that he came penniless while Eliezer had come laden with gifts, or that he saw that Rachel would not be buried with him.)

Anyway, after this introduction the Midrash (found also in Ester Rabba Prologue 11) continues, addressing the Vayhi in the days of Achaz, where no pain or tragedy was pointed out, at least in the gemara. I would say this is no question. The pasuk itself makes clear the tzara. In Yeshaya 7:

א  וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אָחָז בֶּן-יוֹתָם בֶּן-עֻזִּיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה, עָלָה רְצִין מֶלֶךְ-אֲרָם וּפֶקַח בֶּן-רְמַלְיָהוּ מֶלֶךְ-יִשְׂרָאֵל יְרוּשָׁלִַם, לַמִּלְחָמָה, עָלֶיהָ; וְלֹא יָכֹל, לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ.

1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to war against it; but could not prevail against it.

Yes, they did not prevail, but as we see in II Melachim 16, they did besiege him. That was likely not pleasant. And Haman didn't prevail in the end either. That does not mean that there was no tzaar. On the other hand, the midrash at hand, as discussed in the previous segment, found a different reason for the vay in the days of Achashverosh -- the preventing of the building of the Beis Hamikdash. At any rate, back to the midrash!

{See here for some Midrash Rabba on this.}
And those five are: {Esther 1:1} Vayhi in the days of Achashverosh -- there was there Haman the wicked, and so sought to destroy the enemies of Israel {using a euphemism to refer to Israel}. {Bereshit 14:1} Vayhi in the days of Amrafel -- Avraham was cast into the fiery furnace. {Note that this uses a midrashic explanation, rather than the peshat context mentioned by the gemara, that they went to war.} {Ruth 1:1} Vayhi in the days of the judging of the judges -- there was famine, and Elimelech and his two sons, Machlon and Kilyon, died. {Yeshaya 7:1}, Vayhi in the days of Achaz -- and what straits were there? {Yeshaya 9:11} Arameans on the east and Philistines on the west. Achaz said, if there are no young kids, there will be no he-goats; if there are no he-goats, there will be no livestock born; if there is no livestock, there is no goatherd; if there is no goatherd there is no world. And so did Achaz say: if there are no children there are no older ones {learning Torah}; if there are no older ones, there are no students; if there are no students, there are no Sages; if there are no Sages, there is no Torah; if there is no Torah, there are no synagogues and study halls; if there are no synagogues and study halls, He will not manifest His Presence in the world. What did he do? He shut up the synagogues and study halls, which is what Scripture states {Yeshaya 8:16}

טז  צוֹר, תְּעוּדָה; חֲתוֹם תּוֹרָה, בְּלִמֻּדָי.

16 'Bind up the testimony, seal the instruction among My disciples.'

When everyone saw this, they began to cry, Vay, Vay! {Once again, there is a straightforward explanation from simple peshat in the pasuk, but the midrash seeks for a more midrashic explanation.} {Yirmeyahu 1:3} Vayhi in the days of Yehoyakim -- the Temple was destroyed and Hashem sought to return the world to Tohu vaVohu, for it is written there {Bereishit 1:1}

א  בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.	1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
ב  וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ...	2 Now the earth was unformed and void...

and it is written here {Yirmeyahu 26:1}

א  בְּרֵאשִׁית, מַמְלְכוּת יְהוֹיָקִים בֶּן-יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ--מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה:  הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, מֵאֵת יְהוָה לֵאמֹר.

1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word from the LORD, saying:

{And thus, the link is formed by the word Bereishit, that Hashem sought to restore it to this initial form.} Therefore it is written "Vayhi in the days of Achashverosh".

{This last part I only include for the sake of completeness, because the midrash includes it. And it does so because it is part of the same sugya, of traditions from the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah.}

I'll draw the translation, again, from the Point by Point Summary for the parallel daf:

3) TRADITIONS OF R. LEVI

(a) (R. Levi): We have a tradition that Amotz and Amatzyah are brothers.
(b) Question: What do we learn from this?
(c) Answer: This teaches like Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani, that a Kalah who is modest in her father-in-law's house merits that kings and Nevi'im will descend from her;

1. We learn from Tamar - "Yehudah saw her and thought that she was a harlot because she covered her face".
2. Question: Normally a harlot does not cover her face!
3. Answer: Rather, because she had covered her face in his house he didn't recognize her now, and she merited that kings and Nevi'im would descend from her.
4. Kings descended from her, i.e. (all kings of Beis) David;
5. Nevi'im descended from her, like R. Levi taught, that Amotz was the brother of Amatzyah (a king of Beis David), and it says "Chazon Yeshayahu ben Amotz". (Since Yeshayahu's lineage is traced to his father, this shows that also his father was a Navi - Megilah 15a.)

(d) R. Levi: We have a tradition that the Aron did not take up any space!
(e) (Support - Beraisa): There were 10 Amos from Moshe's Aron (until the wall) in each direction;

1. It says "V'Lifnei ha'Devir Esrim Amah." (Turei Even deletes the verse of the Cheruvim from the text, for it has no relevance to what we are proving.)
2. There was no space for the Aron! This shows that it stood miraculously.

I will close with the following idea. I recall from back in my undergraduate Bible-class days, there was a position, I think among scholars as well, that the first verse of many seforim were not written by the attributed author of the work but rather by the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. (Perhaps consider the gemara in Bava Batra 15a:

Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote (Mnemonic YMSHK)²  Isaiah,³  Proverbs,⁴  the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. The Men of the Great Assembly wrote (Mnemonic KNDG)⁵  Ezekiel,⁶  the Twelve Minor Prophets,⁷  Daniel and the Scroll of Esther. Ezra wrote the book that bears his name⁸  and the genealogies of the Book of Chronicles up to his own time.

) Perhaps because of the often retrospective look, and the other hand telling us throughout where and when this author lived. If we consider, at the end of this gemara, that there are only five items, namely the Vayhi Biymei's, rather than the full list, we will also realize that if we select only three of these five, these are introductions to the sefer. In Rut, the first pasuk. In Esther, the first pasuk. In Yeshaya, the third pasuk of the sefer, but part of these very introductory remarks. And this is a tradition not from just any random Joe, or even from any random Amora or Tanna. This is from the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. Thus, I would suggest, this is a tradition about their own work. And then we need not select every Vayhi, and further, we need not restrict to Vayhi Biymei, but rather specifically those Vayhi's which appear at the start of sefarim. This would then include sefer Yehoshua, Shoftim, Shmuel, Yechezkel, Yonah, Ruth, and Esther. And I think a good case could be made for each of these.

I'll bolster this suggestion by pointing out that while in general, Rabbi Levi says Masores Beyadeinu MeAvoteinu, here specifically he says MeiAnshei Knesset HaGedolah.

Haman vs. Mordechai in building the Beis Hamikdash

Summary: Here is a midrash regarding Haman's earlier wicked role. Also informative in terms of placing megillat Esther chronologically.

Post: I'll begin by presenting the beginning of Agadat Esther, a ktav yad of a midrash, from Teiman:

"And it was {vay-hi} in the days of Achashverosh: This is what the verse states {Amos 5:19}:

יט  כַּאֲשֶׁר יָנוּס אִישׁ מִפְּנֵי הָאֲרִי, וּפְגָעוֹ הַדֹּב; וּבָא הַבַּיִת--וְסָמַךְ יָדוֹ עַל-הַקִּיר, וּנְשָׁכוֹ הַנָּחָשׁ.

19 As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; and went into the house and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him.

'A Lion', this is Bavel, to whom Israel was given over first, as is written {Daniel 7:4 -- in which Daniel has a prophetic dream, which is explained in the very same perek as referring to kingdoms}:

ד  קַדְמָיְתָא כְאַרְיֵה, וְגַפִּין דִּי-נְשַׁר לַהּ; חָזֵה הֲוֵית עַד דִּי-מְּרִיטוּ גפיה (גַפַּהּ) וּנְטִילַת מִן-אַרְעָא, וְעַל-רַגְלַיִן כֶּאֱנָשׁ הֳקִימַת, וּלְבַב אֱנָשׁ, יְהִיב לַהּ.

4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings; I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon two feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.

'and a bear met him' -- this is Medea, who are compared to a bear, as is stated {next pasuk in Daniel}:

ה  וַאֲרוּ חֵיוָה אָחֳרִי תִנְיָנָה דָּמְיָה לְדֹב, וְלִשְׂטַר-חַד הֳקִמַת, וּתְלָת עִלְעִין בְּפֻמַּהּ, בֵּין שניה (שִׁנַּהּ); וְכֵן אָמְרִין לַהּ, קוּמִי אֲכֻלִי בְּשַׂר שַׂגִּיא.

5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth; and it was said thus unto it: 'Arise, devour much flesh.'

'and went into the house...[and a serpent bit him]' -- they came to build the Beit HaMikdash, and the wicked Haman arose upon them -- he is Shimshai the scribe --

{Josh interjects: see Ezra 4:8:

ח  רְחוּם בְּעֵל-טְעֵם, וְשִׁמְשַׁי סָפְרָא, כְּתַבוּ אִגְּרָה חֲדָה, עַל-יְרוּשְׁלֶם--לְאַרְתַּחְשַׁשְׂתְּא מַלְכָּא, כְּנֵמָא.

8 Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort--

The perek continues with the contents of the letter to king Artaxerxes, that the Jews are building a city, and it is a rebellious city; the king should check in his royal records and the sefer zichronos to see this; it will cause nezek hamelech, etc. The king responded by forbidding the building, and it only resumed in the days of Daryavesh. See the last pasuk of that perek:

כד  בֵּאדַיִן, בְּטֵלַת עֲבִידַת בֵּית-אֱלָהָא, דִּי, בִּירוּשְׁלֶם; וַהֲוָת, בָּטְלָא, עַד שְׁנַת תַּרְתֵּין, לְמַלְכוּת דָּרְיָוֶשׁ מֶלֶךְ-פָּרָס.  {פ}

24 Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem; and it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. {P}

}

in order to cancel the building of the Bet Hamikdash, and Mordechai stood against him. And why? For he was from the tribe of Binyamin, who were extremely dedicated {natan nafsho} for the Temple, for it is written {Devarim 33:12, in veZot HaBeracha}:

יב  לְבִנְיָמִן אָמַר--יְדִיד ה, יִשְׁכֹּן לָבֶטַח עָלָיו; חֹפֵף עָלָיו כָּל-הַיּוֹם, וּבֵין כְּתֵפָיו שָׁכֵן.  {ס}

12 Of Benjamin he said: The beloved of the LORD shall dwell in safety by Him; He covereth him all the day, and He dwelleth between his shoulders. {S}

Therefore the wicked Haman arose against him {Mordechai} to nullify his plan. {J: I think this how to parse the previous statement. Alternatively, therefore he {=Mordechai} arose against him, the wicked Haman, in order to nullify his plan. But besides being awkward, according the Ezra, this letter was successful in preventing the building.}

And so it is written {Ezra 4:6}

ו  וּבְמַלְכוּת, אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, בִּתְחִלַּת, מַלְכוּתוֹ--כָּתְבוּ שִׂטְנָה, עַל-יֹשְׁבֵי יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִָם.  {ס}

6 And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. {S}

Therefore, Israel cried "Vay, Vay!" "

Rashi on sefer Ezra puts Shimshai as a son of Haman, rather than a name of Haman himself. In Midrash Panim Acheirim, it puts it as Shimshai son of Haman. See Buber's comments on this.

Whether it is Haman himself or a son of Haman (especially if not one of the ten) could have ramifications on trying to place this chronologically, before or after the Purim story. Though it seems like all this happened beforehand. Though how would Mordechai be in any position of power at the beginning to influence politics? (Perhaps he could have been. It depends how one interprets him sitting beshaar hamalech. The other day, I heard Rabbi Amnon Bazak explain it as a position of some power, since judges sat at the shaar haIr. If so, perhaps he was active in the royal court.)

Some clarification. Achashverosh corresponds to Xerxes, while Artachshasta corresponds to Artaxerxes. There were actually three Artaxerxes, and apparently the one in the time of Ezra is Artaxerxes I. Apparently, Josephus also makes this identification of Achashverosh with the recipient of the letter from Shimshai:

Josephus wrongfully claims that the Ahasuerus (Xerxes) of the Book of Esther is this Artaxerxes I., and also that the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah is Xerxes.

See also Ibn Ezra for a chronology and an identification of the various kings. It is not an easy thing to chronologically place the story of Esther. But having Jews already back in Eretz Yisrael at this time, trying to rebuild the city and the Temple, certainly introduces an interesting perspective. This could readily be cast as the sin prompting the danger from Haman. Not the partaking in the king's great feast, but not returning from the exile. And Mordechai and Esther were also among those who did not return.

I can see the temptation in equating these various characters. Not only Achashverosh occurring in both places (though it might have been a common name for kings), and not only Chazal's general closed-canon approach, which is the law of conservation of Biblical personalities. There are linguistic and thematic parallels as well. For example, talking about the harm to the king, telling him to look in his sefer zichronot, and maligning the Jews by saying that they are rebellious and not loyal to the king. I wonder at the name. Is it because he gave a gift to the king to influence him against the Jews?

I'll close with this: Often enough, it seems that a midrash takes a verse, or sequential parts of verse, entirely out of context. This is fine; this is hyper-literalism; this is midrash. But in the process, we can lose out on the color and taste of the source pasuk in its peshat sense. In this instance, though, I think that the midrash is true to the theme of the pasuk, and we can gain much by refocusing on the pasuk in {Amos 5:19}:

יט  כַּאֲשֶׁר יָנוּס אִישׁ מִפְּנֵי הָאֲרִי, וּפְגָעוֹ הַדֹּב; וּבָא הַבַּיִת--וְסָמַךְ יָדוֹ עַל-הַקִּיר, וּנְשָׁכוֹ הַנָּחָשׁ.

19 As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; and went into the house and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him.

Note the word ka'asher, meaning that it is intended metaphorically. What picture is this? A man is outdoors and a lion spots him and pursues him. He manages to escape, only to meet up with a bear! Finally, he escapes even that, and gets to the safety of his own home. He feels secure. Finally able to get some rest, he leans on the wall of his own home for support. And just then, when he least expects it, a serpent, perhaps from within the wall, bites him!

Compare to the situation of Bnei Yisrael in Exile. One could cast it in the same light. First they had to contend with Bavel, and then with Maday. Then, it was time to go home, and a bunch actually did go back to Eretz Yisrael. And they even starting to build the city of Yerushalayim and the Beis Hamikdash, when the snake at home caught them unawares. They had to contend with Shimshai the scribe, who either was Haman or was a Haman equivalent.