Purim

We know that not a single letter in any Passuk is superfluous, and that each word is suffused with deeper meaning. While this is true in any of the twenty-four Sifrei Tanach, one senses that it is perhaps more so in the case of Meggilas Esther. The Gemarah in Megillah spends many lines painstakingly explaining almost every word of the first number of Perakim Al Derech HaDrush, indicating that there is much meaning below the surface. This would certainly seem to be true in the case of a phrase that is repeated more than once, perhaps indicating its importance. The is one example of this towards the end of the Meggilah that requires some explanation.

Once Haman is eliminated, the Pessukim turn to the war that took place some months later, during the month of Adar. The Megillah tells us first that the Yidden in each locale defended themselves and beat back their enemies: “Nikhalu HaYehudim B’Areihem…L’Shloach Yad B’Mivakshei Ra’asam.” The Passuk describes their action in more detail as well: “V’Yaku Hayehudim B’Chol Oyvehem Makas Cherev V’Hereg V’Abdan”. They enjoyed a complete and total victory, dispatching their enemies with finality. We are also told that on that day alone., the Yidden in Shushan killed five hundred people, and hung the ten sons of Haman.

At this point, the Passuk adds another detail regarding these operations “U’BaBiza Lo Shalchu Es Yadam”. Although the Yidden were entirely victorious, they did not apply to themselves a well-known maxim: “To the victor go the spoils.” This phrase, “U’BaBiza Lo Shalchu Es Yadam”, is repeated two more times: once when discussing the second day of battle in Shushan, and then again when reviewing the results of the fighting in the other Medinos.

Clearly, if these words are thrice repeated they must have significance, which leads to two questions. First Yidden were clearly entitled to the Biza—the decree allowing them to defended themselves included the words “U’Shalalm LaBaz”—if so, why did they not avail themselves of what was rightfully theirs? Why not partake in some of their richly deserved riches? Secondly, what is the significance to us? Why do we need to know that BaBiza Lo Shalchu Es Yadam?

Rashi, earlier on the words “U’Shalalm LaBaz”, explains that though they were allowed to take the Biza, the Yidden did not, in order to show that their aims were not financial: “SheHeru LaKol Shelo Na’aseh L’Shem Mamon”. Later on, however, the first time we are told “U’BaBiza Lo Shalchu Es Yadam”, Rashi explains that this was because they did not want Achashverosh to be jealous of their gains.

We can perhaps explain the two Pshatim in Rashi were based on the specific circumstances referred to in these Pessukim. In the first case, Rashi is referring to the Yidden throughout the Medina—they did not take Biza so that people would not misunderstand their motives. Later on, the Passuk is talking about the Yidden in Shushan, who were in the face of Achashverosh. Because of their proximity to the Bais HaMelech, they had an additional consideration: “Shelo Yiten Hamelech Ayin Tzarah B’Mamon”.

If we assume that this is true, the real reason for the words “U’BaBiza Lo Shalchu Es Yadam” was that the Yidden did not want people to think that they were fighting only in order to gain the spoils. This too is difficult to understand, however. The lives of all Jews were at stake, their enemies banding together to annihilate them—why would anyone assume that the motives for self-defense were monetary?

Further, Chazal to assign a little more importance to this detail of the story.

The Gemara at the beginning of Megillah, discusses the status of Megilas Esther as one of the Sifrei Kodesh, leading to a discussion of whether “Esther B’Ruach Hakodesh Ne’emrah”. The Gemara then brings a number of proofs from the Pessukim which seem to establish that the Megilah was indeed written with Ruach HaKodesh. For example, the Passuk says “Vayomer Haman B’Libo”, telling us what Haman thought—something that would be difficult to ascertain without Ruach Hakodesh. One of the other proofs brought is from the words “U’BaBiza Lo Shalchu Es Yadam”: how would Mordechai and Esther have known that no one in the entire kingdom took advantage of the Biza without Ruach Hakodesh? Although the Gemara then posits that they may have found out through messengers, the original notion remains. This being the case, it emerges that Mordechai and Esther found out through Ruach Hakodesh that no one laid their hands on the Biza—why was this important for them to know?

Also, if, as Rashi explains, the reason for U’BaBiza Lo Shalchu Es Yadam Yidden was that they didn’t want their neighbors to misunderstand their intentions, why was it important for Mordechai and Esther to be aware of this fact at all?

It certainly seems that perhaps there is more to the story, that we can understand this detail of the Megillah, “U’BaBiza Lo Shalchu Es Yadam” in a different way as well.

The truth is that there was another war, earlier in our history, in which a mistake was made with regard to the Biza.

When Shmuel told Shaul Hamelech to attack Amalek, there was a specific condition: “Lech V’Hikisa Es Amalek V’Hecheramtem Es Kol Asher Lo”. Radak explains that “V’hecheramtem” is a “Lashon Keliah V’Hashchasa”, and so the Passuk is telling us that Bnei Yisroel was to attack Amalek, and destroy all of their belongings. There was not to be any Biza arising from their victory—everything was to be destroyed.

As we know, however, this did not occur. Rather, Bnei Yisroel spared some of the livestock—they kept “Mativ Hatzon V’Habakar”, the choicest animals, to bring as Korbanos. Shmuel later reprimanded them for this misstep, reminding them: “Hachafetz L’Hashem B’Olos V’Zevachim K’Shmoah B’Kol Hashem”. HKBH would rather that His word was heeded than all the Korbanos: “Hinei Shama M’Zevach Tov L’Hakshiv M’Chelev Izim.”

Pirkei D’Rebi Eliezer discusses these Pessukim and draws a direct line between Agag, who was kept alive by Shaul, and Haman, who was eventually defeated by the descendants of Shaul. The implication of the Medrash is that the decision made by Shaul, to allow Agag to live, led directly to the story of Purim. As part of this discussion, the Medrash also cites the conversation between Shmuel and Shaul regarding the livestock. In reading the Pessukim, it seems that these were two independent errors—allowing Agag to live, and keeping some of the Biza—but the Medrash appears to link them. How can we understand this?

Perhaps the answer lies in an important insight into the character of Amalek, as explained by Rav Hutner in Pachad Yitzchok on Purim.

As we know, the feud between Klal Yisroel and Amalek started with their respective ancestors, Yaakov and Eisav, and the differences between these two nations can be seen in the conversations that took place between the two.

When Yaakov asked Eisav to sell him the Bechora, he said: “Machrah KaYom Es Bechorascha Li”, asking that the sale be effective that very day. This can be contrasted with a statement made by Yaakov Avinu later one, when he took leave of Eisav, telling him that he would join him later, “Ad Asher Avo El Adoni Seirah”. The Medrash Rabba, there, points out that Yaakov never went to Seir, and therefore suggests that this statement was referring to Acharis Hayamim.

Rav Hutner explains that the reason Yaakov said “KaYom” at the time of the Mechiras HaBechora was because Eisav might later claim that the Mechira was only Chal in Acharis Hayamim, just as Yaakov’s promise to join him in Se’ir was only applicable L’Asid Lavo.

In truth, however, Rav Hutner explains that this discussion leads us to an important distinction between Yaakov and Eisav, and therefore Yisroel and Amalek, as can be seen from a different word: “Machar”.

When Moshe gave Yehoshua the order to battle Amalek, the word Machar is used: “Tzei V’Hilachem B’Amalek Machar”. Similarly, Esther uses the word Machar when she invites Achashverosh and Haman to the Mishteh, “Machar E’aseh K’Dvar Hamelech”, and when she requests additional time for the yiden of Shushan to battle their enemies.

Rav Hutner explains that Machar is a concept that is limited to Bnei Yisroel and completely foreign to Amalek, for it refers to an ability to see past the now. As Bnei Yaakov, we know that there is today, Olam HaZeh, and there is an Olam Habaah, a future. We therefore act in a way that shows we are present in this world, while keeping in mind the affects our actions may have on the future. We can live in a world of “KaYom” while maintaining awareness of the reality of “Ad Asher Avo”.

With this in mind, we can understand the mistake made by Bnei Yisroel at the time of Shaul Hamelech. by keeping the “Mativ Hatzon V’Habakar”, they exhibited a lack of awareness about Amalek. The possessions of Amalek are completely for today, they have no relationship to the future: the needs of today are all that matter. Such livestock cannot possibly be used for a Korban, the entire essence of which is taking the Hayom and using it for Machar, using the Olam HaGashmi to access the Olam HaRuchani. Shmuel tells the people “Hinei Shama M’Zevach Tov L’Hakshiv M’Chelev Izim”, the Dvar Hashem has no connection to these animals.

This is why the two errors in that Milchemes Amalek were linked: only by misunderstanding the entire essence of Amalek, and why they are different from us, would one allow Agag to live or decide to use their livestock for Korbanos.

Perhaps it was this error that Klal Yisroel sought to avoid at the time of Esther. They saw their battle as one of “Lech V’Hikisa Es Amalek” and therefore they kept to the rubric of “V’Hecheramtem Es Kol Asher Lo”. They understood the forces they were up against, and therefore they didn’t touch the Biza, “U’BaBiza Lo Shalchu Es Yadam”. This had the affect of “SheHeru LaKol Shelo Na’aseh L’Shem Mamon”, which was important so that everyone would understand that this was Milchemes Amalek and not just another war. This was a battle between those limited to HaYom and the nation of Machar. In this case, the victor is not at all interested in the spoils, tainted as they are by the attitudes of the vanquished.

We can now also understand why it would have been important for Mordechai and Esther to know that “BaBiza Lo Shalchu Es Yadam”. They certainly understood the implications of the war, and may have been concerned that others didn’t, that they—as their ancestors before them—lacked the sensitivity necessary to truly defeat Amalek. By receiving word that the Biza was left untouched, be it through Ruach Hakodesh or a messenger, their fears were assuaged, and they could rest assured that the forces of Machar had prevailed.