Tetzaveh-Purim 5781: Be Good Not Smart

(ד) בְּהַרְאֹת֗וֹ אֶת־עֹ֙שֶׁר֙ כְּב֣וֹד מַלְכוּת֔וֹ וְאֶ֨ת־יְקָ֔ר תִּפְאֶ֖רֶת גְּדוּלָּת֑וֹ יָמִ֣ים רַבִּ֔ים שְׁמוֹנִ֥ים וּמְאַ֖ת יֽוֹם׃

Esther 1:4

(4) For no fewer than a hundred and eighty days he displayed the vast riches of his kingdom and the splendid glory of his majesty.

מגילה י״ב א:ז׳

בְּהַרְאוֹתוֹ אֶת עוֹשֶׁר כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלָּבַשׁ בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה כְּתִיב הָכָא יְקָר תִּפְאֶרֶת גְּדוּלָּתוֹ וּכְתִיב הָתָם לְכָבוֹד וּלְתִפְאֶרֶת

Megillah 12a:7

The verse states: “When he showed the riches of his glorious [kevod] kingdom and the honor of his majestic [tiferet] greatness” (Esther 1:4). Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: This teaches that Ahasuerus wore the priestly vestments. Proof for this assertion may be adduced from the fact that the same terms are written with regard to the priestly vestments, as it is written here: “The riches of his glorious [kevod] kingdom and the honor of his majestic [tiferet] greatness.” And it is written there, with regard to the priestly garments: “For glory [kavod] and for majesty [tiferet]” (Exodus 28:2).

אסתר ו׳:י״א

(יא) וַיִּקַּ֤ח הָמָן֙ אֶת־הַלְּב֣וּשׁ וְאֶת־הַסּ֔וּס וַיַּלְבֵּ֖שׁ אֶֽת־מָרְדֳּכָ֑י וַיַּרְכִּיבֵ֙הוּ֙ בִּרְח֣וֹב הָעִ֔יר וַיִּקְרָ֣א לְפָנָ֔יו כָּ֚כָה יֵעָשֶׂ֣ה לָאִ֔ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ חָפֵ֥ץ בִּיקָרֽוֹ׃

Esther 6:11

(11) So Haman took the garb and the horse and arrayed Mordecai and paraded him through the city square; and he proclaimed before him: This is what is done for the man whom the king desires to honor!

אסתר ח׳:ט״ו

(טו) וּמָרְדֳּכַ֞י יָצָ֣א ׀ מִלִּפְנֵ֣י הַמֶּ֗לֶךְ בִּלְב֤וּשׁ מַלְכוּת֙ תְּכֵ֣לֶת וָח֔וּר וַעֲטֶ֤רֶת זָהָב֙ גְּדוֹלָ֔ה וְתַכְרִ֥יךְ בּ֖וּץ וְאַרְגָּמָ֑ן וְהָעִ֣יר שׁוּשָׁ֔ן צָהֲלָ֖ה וְשָׂמֵֽחָה׃

Esther 8:15

(15) Mordecai left the king’s presence in royal robes of blue and white, with a magnificent crown of gold and a mantle of fine linen and purple wool. And the city of Shushan rang with joyous cries.

רמב"ן על שמות כ״ח:ב׳

(א) לכבוד ולתפארת שיהיה נכבד ומפואר במלבושים נכבדים ומפוארים, כמו שאמר הכתוב כחתן יכהן פאר (ישעיה סא י), כי אלה הבגדים לבושי מלכות הן, כדמותן ילבשו המלכים בזמן התורה...

Ramban on Exodus 28:2

(1) For honor and for splendor: That he should be honored and glorious with honorable and glorious clothing, as the verse states (Isaiah 61:10), "as a groom who ministers in glory" - as these clothes were the clothes of royalty. Their likeness was worn by kings during the time of the Torah, as we found with the tunic (ketonet), "and he made for him a tunic of stripes" (Genesis 37:3), the explanation of which is that it is embroidered with stripes - and it is a checkerboard tunic, as I have explained (Ramban on Exodus 25:7) - and he clothed him 'like the son of ancient kings.' And this is [also] the way with the robe (maeil) and the tunic - and it is written (II Samuel 13:18), "And upon her was a tunic of stripes, as so would the virgin daughters of the king wear robes"; and its explanation is that on her was a tunic of stripes apparent and revealed, since the custom of the virgin daughters of the king was to wear robes in which they would wrap themselves, and it would come out that the tunic of stripes would be an outer garment. And therefore, it states (II Samuel 13:19), "and she tore the tunic of stripes that was upon her." And the mitre (mitsnefet) is known also today for kings and great ministers. And therefore the verse states (Ezekiel 21:31) about the fall of the kingdom, "Remove the mitre and lift off the crown"; and it is also written (Isaiah 62:3), "and a mitre (tsnif) of royalty. And so does the verse (Exodus 39:28) call them, "the glory of hats"; and it is written (Ezekiel 44:18), "And glorious linens will be on their heads" - as they are glorious and distinctive for those that crown themselves with them. And the apron (ephod) and the breastplate (choshen) are [also] clothes of royalty, as the matter that is written (Daniel 8:16), "and a gold chain upon your neck." And the frontlet (tsits) is a crown of kings - and it is written (Psalms 132:18), "his crown will shine (yatsits)." And [the garments of the High Priest] are gold and purple and turquoise - and it is written (Pslams 45:14), "All honorable is the daughter of the king inside, from checkerboards of gold is her clothing"; and it is written (Daniel 5:16), "you will wear purple and a gold chain upon your neck." And [concerning] turquoise even today 'no man lifts his hand' to wear it except for a king of nations. And it is written (Esther 8:15), "And Mordechai went out from in front of the king with regal clothes of turquoise and white, and a crown of gold and a wrap of linen and purple" - and the wrap is the robe (maeil) in which he wraps himself. And according to the true path, for honor and for splendor is saying that they make holy clothes for Aharon to serve in, for the honor of God that dwells among them and for the splendor (tiferet) of their might, as it is written (Psalms 89:18), "As You are the splendor of their strength." And it is written (Isaiah 64:10), "The house of our holiness and our splendor where our ancestors praised You" - our holiness is the Honor, and our splendor is the Splendor of Israel. And it is also stated (Psalms 96:6), "Might and splendor are in His Temple," and so [too] (Isaiah 60:13), "To glorify the place of My Temple, and I will honor the place of My feet" - that the place of the Temple be glorious in splendor and the place of His feet, which is the place of the Temple, honored with the honor of God. And so [too] (Isaiah 44:23), "And in Israel will He be splendorous," [means] that He will show and designate His splendor in them. And so it states below (Exodus 28:40), also with clothing of the children - all of them - "for honor and for splendor." And it states about the sacrifices (Isaiah 60:7), "they will go up willingly on My altar - the House of My splendor will I make splendorous" - and behold the altar is His will and the honor is the House of His splendor. And the clothing would need to be made for its sake (lishma); and it is likely that [those that made them] required [particular] intention. And therefore, it states (Exodus 28:3), And you shall speak to all the ones of wise heart, who has been filled with a spirit of wisdom" - that they understand what they should do. And we have already learned (Yoma 69a), "The appearance of his likeness (of the High Priest) is making victory in front of me in my wars."

מלבי"ם על שמות כ״ח:ב׳

(א) ועשית בגדי קדש, הנה הבגדים שצוה לעשות היה כפי הגלוי בגדים חיצונים, שיספר ענינם איך עשו אותם האומנים במלאכה, אבל באמת היו מורים על בגדים פנימים שיעשו כהני ה' להלביש בם את נפשותיהם בדעות ובמדות ובתכונות טובות שהם מלבושי הנפש, ומלבושים אלה לא עשו האומנים, וצוה ה' אל משה שהוא יעשה בגדי קדש אלה, היינו ללמדם תקון נפשותיהם ומדותיהם באופן שילבישו הוד והדר את נפשם הפנימית. ופי' ועשית בגדי קדש לכבוד, כי התבאר אצלנו בכ"מ שנפש האדם נקראת בשם כבוד בכתבי הקדש [כמ"ש למען יזמרך כבוד וכדומה] תעשה בגדי קדש שבם יתלבש הכבוד שהיא הנפש,

Malbim on Exodus 28:2

(1) And you shall make sacred garments: Behold, the garments that He commanded to make were ostensibly outer garments, such that their makeup is discussed - how the craftsmen are to make them with their work. But they really indicate inner clothes that the priests of God should make - to clothe their souls with thoughts and traits and proper tendencies, which are the clothes of the soul; and the craftsmen did not make those garments. But God commanded Moses that he should make these sacred garments - meaning to teach them how to refine their souls and traits, in such a way they will wear majesty and splendor upon their internal souls. And the explanation of "And you shall make sacred garments for glory," is that it is understood by us that every place that the soul of a man is called glory (as in Psalms 30:13, "In order that my glory sings"), you shall make sacred garments for the glory - meaning the soul - to wear...

תניא, חלק ראשון, ספר של בינונים ד׳

(א) ועוד יש לכל נפש אלהית שלשה לבושים, שהם מחשבה דבור ומעשה של תרי"ג מצוות התורה...

Tanya, Part I; Likkutei Amarim 4

...

ספר הזהר, שלח לך ל׳:רכ״ז-רל״ז

(ב) אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, ודַּאי יְדַעְנָא דְּאַתּוּן מְלוּבָּשִׁין תַּמָּן, בִּלְבוּשׁ יְקָר, דְּגוּפָא דַּכְיָא קַדִּישָׁא. אִי הֲוָה בְּגַוְונָא דָּא בְּהַאי עָלְמָא, בַּר נָשׁ דְּאִתְחֲזֵי בְּהַהוּא גּוּפָא, כְּגַוְונָא דְּאַתּוּן קַיְימִין בְּהַהוּא עָלְמָא...

Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai was speaking to a person in the next world. He said to him: “I know that in the next world your נשמות are clothed in very precious לבושים. Is there anyone in עולם הזה who you can see has such לבושים“?

שָׁאִילוּ קַמֵּי רַב מְתִיבְתָּא, תְּרֵין עוּלְימִין דְּאִתְלְבָּשׁוּ בֵּינָנָא, בָּתַר דְּסַבְלוּ צַעֲרָא עַל חוֹבָא, דְּלָא אִתְחֲזֵי לְגַלָּאָה, וְשָׁאִילּוּ דָּא קַמֵּי רַב מְתִיבְתָּא. וְאִיהוּ אָמַר, דְּהָא הֲוָה בְּהַאי עָלְמָא הָכִי. מְנָלָן. דִּכְתִּיב, (אסתר ה׳:א׳) וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וַתִּלְבַּשׁ אֶסְתֵּר מַלְכוּת, אִתְלַבְּשַׁת בְּהַהוּא

דִּיּוּקְנָא דְּהַהוּא עָלְמָא...

This person replied: “This question was once asked to the a certain ראש ישיבה, he said: ‘Yes, there are people in this world who have the לבושים of the people in גן עדן.' "Who are these people?" As it say, "When it was time for אסתר to go to אחשורוש ,she clothed herself in מלכות".

וְכַד עָאלַת קַמֵּי מַלְכָּא אֲחַשְׁוִרוֹשׁ, וְחָמָא הַהוּא לְבוּשָׁא דִּנְהוֹרָא, דִּיוּקְנָאָה אִדְמִי לְמַלְאַךְ אֱלֹהִים. פַּרְחָה מִנֵּיהּ נִשְׁמְתָא לְפוּם שַׁעֲתָא. מָרְדְּכַי אוּף הָכִי, דִּכְתִּיב (אסתר ח) וּמָרְדְּכַי יָצָא מִלִּפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ בִּלְבוּשׁ מַלְכוּת. לְבוּשׁ מַלְכוּת, ודַּאי, דִּיּוּקְנָא דְּהַהוּא עָלְמָא וְעַל דָּא כְּתִיב, (אסתר ט) כִּי נָפַל פַּחַד מָרְדְּכַי עֲלֵיהֶם. פַּחַד מָרְדְּכַי, וְלָא פַּחַד אֲחַשְׁוִרוֹשׁ...

אסתר's נשמה clothed itself with those holy לבושים that the נשמות wear in גן עדן .Also מרדכי also acquired לבושים as it is written, "And מרדכי went.." These were the same לבושים as the נשמות wear in גן עדן.

כַּד קַבִּילוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹרַיְיתָא, כְּגַוְונָא דָּא הֲוָה לְהוֹן. עַד דְּחָבוּ, דִּכְתִּיב בְּהוּ, (שמות לג) וַיִּתְנַצְּלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת עֶדְיָם מֵהַר חוֹרֶב. אִתְפְּשָׁטוּ מֵהַהוּא לְבוּשָׁא...

The entire time nation, wore these לבושים at מתן תורה. However, they lost these לבושים when they committed the העגל חטא. They were stripped of their adornments at סיני הר after the העגל חטא ,it is a reference to losing these לבושים.

Zohar, Sh'lach 30:227-237

...

בני יששכר, אדר ט׳:ב׳

ומעתה הרי שלך לפניך מנהג ישראל תורה היא שנהגו בשעת השמחה להתלבש בלבושים שונים לזכרון הנס והפלא שהתנוסס הש"י עם מרדכ"י ואסת"ר שנתלבשו במלבושי יקר רוחניים מה שמלובשין הצדיקים בג"ע והנה תראה בדברי הזהר שכן הי' לישראל במתן תורה ותבין לפ"ז משאמרז"ל הדר קבלו' בימי אחשורוש:

Bnei Yissaschar, Adar 9:2

...

מגילה ז׳ ב

אָמַר רָבָא מִיחַיַּיב אִינִישׁ לְבַסּוֹמֵי בְּפוּרַיָּא עַד דְּלָא יָדַע בֵּין אָרוּר הָמָן לְבָרוּךְ מָרְדֳּכַי

Megillah 7b

You have fulfilled two mitzvot through us, our teacher: The mitzva of: “And sending portions one to another,” and the mitzva of: “And gifts to the poor,” as Rabbi Oshaya was poor and this was a substantial gift. The Gemara relates that Rabba sent Purim portions from the house of the Exilarch to Marei bar Mar in the hands of Abaye, who was his nephew and student. The Purim portions consisted of a sack [taska] full of dates [kashva] and a cupful of roasted flour [kimḥa de’avshuna]. Abaye said to him: Now, Mari will say the popular expression: Even if a farmer becomes the king, the basket does not descend from his neck. Rabba was named the head of the yeshiva in Pumbedita, and nevertheless, he continued to send very plain gifts, because he was impoverished. Marei bar Mar sent back to him a sack full of ginger and a cupful of long peppers [pilpalta arikha], a much more expensive gift. Abaye said to him: The master, Rabba, will now say: I sent him sweet items and he sent me pungent ones. In describing that same incident, Abaye said: When I left the house of the master, Rabba, to go to Marei bar Mar, I was already satiated. However, when I arrived there at Marei bar Mar’s house, they served me sixty plates of sixty kinds of cooked dishes, and I ate sixty portions from each of them. The last dish was called pot roast, and I was still so hungry that I wanted to chew the plate afterward. And in continuation Abaye said: This explains the folk saying that people say: The poor man is hungry and does not know it, as Abaye was unaware how hungry he had been in his master’s house. Alternatively, there is another appropriate, popular expression: Room in the stomach for sweets can always be found. The Gemara relates that Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Avin would exchange their meals with each other to fulfill their obligation of sending portions on Purim. Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated with wine on Purim until he is so intoxicated that he does not know how to distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordecai. The Gemara relates that Rabba and Rabbi Zeira prepared a Purim feast with each other, and they became intoxicated to the point that Rabba arose and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day, when he became sober and realized what he had done, Rabba asked God for mercy, and revived him. The next year, Rabba said to Rabbi Zeira: Let the Master come and let us prepare the Purim feast with each other. He said to him: Miracles do not happen each and every hour, and I do not want to undergo that experience again. Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? “Days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22) is written, i.e., days and not nights. The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi was sitting before Rav Kahana his teacher on Purim, and it grew dark and the Sages who usually came to study with him did not come. Rav Ashi said to him: What is the reason that the Sages did not come today? Rav Kahana answered: Perhaps they are preoccupied with the Purim feast. Rav Ashi said to him: Wasn’t it possible for them to eat the feast at night on Purim, instead of being derelict in their Torah study on Purim day? Rav Kahana said to him: Didn’t the master learn that which Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation? Rav Ashi said to him: Did Rava say that? Rav Kahana said to him: Yes. Rav Ashi then learned it from him forty times until he remembered it so well that it seemed to him as if it were placed in his purse. mishna The previous mishna concluded with the formula: The difference between…is only, thereby distinguishing between the halakhot in two different cases. The following mishnayot employ the same formula and distinguish between the halakhot in cases unrelated to Purim and the Megilla. The first is: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only in preparing food alone. It is permitted to cook and bake in order to prepare food on Festivals; however, on Shabbat it is prohibited. gemara The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of actions that facilitate preparation of food, e.g., sharpening a knife for slaughter, this, Shabbat, and that, Festivals, are equal, in that actions that facilitate preparation of food are prohibited. The Gemara comments: If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat is only is preparing food. Rabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate preparation of food on Festivals. The Gemara elaborates. What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna? It is as the verse states: “Except that which every person must eat, only that may be done for you” (Exodus 12:16). “That” is permitted, and not actions that facilitate it. And Rabbi Yehuda says: “For you” means for you, for all your needs. The Gemara asks: And for the other, first, tanna too, isn’t it written: “For you”? The Gemara answers: He infers: For you, and not for gentiles; for you, and not for dogs. It is forbidden to perform labors for the sake of gentiles, or for animals, even if it is to feed them. The Gemara asks further: And for the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn’t it written: “That,” which is a restrictive term that limits the application of a particular halakha? The Gemara answers: It is written: “That,” which is restrictive, and it is written: “For you,” which is inclusive. Rabbi Yehuda resolves the conflict between the two: Here, the word: “That,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is possible to perform them on the Festival eve but which are prohibited on the Festival; there, the phrase: “For you,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is impossible to perform them on the Festival eve and which are permitted even on the Festival. MISHNA: The difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only that in this case, i.e., Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man, as he is stoned by a court based on the testimony of witnesses who forewarned the transgressor; and in that case, i.e., Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of God, with karet. GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of payment of damages, both this, Shabbat, and that, Yom Kippur, are equal in that one is exempt in both cases. If one performs an action on Shabbat that entails both a prohibited labor and damage to another’s property, since his transgression is punishable by death, he is exempt from paying damages. Apparently, according to the mishna, the same halakha applies to Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana would render Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment of damages. Just as in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Shabbat, so too, in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Yom Kippur, he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Yom Kippur. We learned there in a mishna (Makkot 23a): All those liable to receive karet who were flogged in court were exempted from their karet, which is imposed by heaven. Most transgressors are liable to receive karet for violating prohibitions that are punishable by flogging. If they are flogged, they are exempt from karet, as it is stated with regard to one liable to receive lashes: “Then your brother shall be dishonored before you” (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that once he was flogged he is like your brother, and his sins have been pardoned; this is the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him on this issue. Rava said that the Sages of the school of Rav said: We learned: The difference between Yom Kippur and Shabbat is only that in this case, Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable with karet. And if the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel is so, in both this case, Shabbat, and that case, Yom Kippur, the punishment is at the hand of Man. Rav Naḥman said: There is no proof from here that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of incest were included in the principle: “For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the persons that commit them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet administered to one’s sister excluded from this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is to sentence her to the punishment of karet and not to the punishment of lashes. This serves as a paradigm; wherever one is liable to receive karet, there are no lashes. Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is according to the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him. The mishna can be understood as follows: In this case, Shabbat, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is with karet. If, however, he was flogged, he is exempt from karet.

אור חדש, הקדמה

וצריך שיהיה השכרות כל כך עד שיסלק השכל, וכמו שאמרו (מגילה ז:) צריך לבסומי בפוריא עד שלא ידע בין ארור המן ובין ברוך מרדכי. כלומר, כיון שתקנו ימי הפורים למשתה ושמחה, שהוא הנאת הגוף, לכך צריך שיהיו נמשכים לגמרי אחר הנאת הגוף, עד שיסולק השכל לגמרי. כי הגוף והשכל שני הפכים, שאם האחד קם השני נופל, וכל אשר הוא נוטה אחר השכל, הוא נגד הנאת גופו...

Ohr Chadash, Introduction

...

אור חדש ג׳:ז׳:י״ח

כלומר כי כאשר אדם מגיע למדה זאת, אין לו שום עזר כלל, כי לא ידע דבר, ואין לו יכולת. וכך ישראל באותו שעה, לא היה העזר והתשועה דבר מה מצד עצמם, רק מן השם יתברך היתה הישועה הזאת לגמרי, והיה כאיש אשר לא ידע דבר, שאין לו תשועה מצד עצמו כלל.

Ohr Chadash 3:7:18

...

חולין קל״ט ב:י״א

המן מן התורה מנין (בראשית ג, יא) המן העץ

Chullin 139b:11

They also asked Rav Mattana: From where in the Torah can one find an allusion to the hanging of Haman? He replied: The verse states after Adam ate from the tree of knowledge: “Have you eaten of [hamin] the tree, about which I commanded you that you should not eat?” (Genesis 3:11). Hamin is spelled in the same manner as Haman: Heh, mem, nun.

מגילה י״ב א

שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יוֹחַאי מִפְּנֵי מָה נִתְחַיְּיבוּ שׂוֹנְאֵיהֶן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ הַדּוֹר כְּלָיָה אָמַר לָהֶם אִמְרוּ אַתֶּם אָמְרוּ לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּהֱנוּ מִסְּעוּדָתוֹ שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע אִם כֵּן שֶׁבְּשׁוּשַׁן יֵהָרְגוּ שֶׁבְּכׇל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ אַל יֵהָרְגוּ אָמְרוּ לוֹ אֱמוֹר אַתָּה אָמַר לָהֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַצֶּלֶם

Megillah 12a

This is also taught in a baraita, as an indication that the years counted were only partial years: And when Belshazzar was killed, there was still another year left for Babylonia before the reckoning of the seventy years was completed. And then Darius arose and completed it. Although seventy years were previously counted according to Belshazzar’s count, from the exile of Jehoiakim, because the years were only partial, there was still one year left in order to complete those seventy years. Rava said: Daniel also erred in this calculation, as it is written: “In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, meditated in the books over the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish for the desolations of Jerusalem seventy years” (Daniel 9:2). From the fact that he said “I meditated,” a term indicating recounting and calculating, it can be inferred that he had previously erred. The Gemara comments: In any case, the verses contradict each other with regard to how the seventy years should be calculated. In one verse it is written: “After seventy years are accomplished for Babylonia I will remember [efkod] you, and perform My good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place” (Jeremiah 29:10), which indicates that the seventy years should be counted from the Babylonian exile. And in another verse it is written: “That he would accomplish for the desolations of Jerusalem seventy years” (Daniel 9:2), indicating that the seventy years are calculated from the destruction of Jerusalem. Rava said in response: The seventy years that “are accomplished for Babylonia” were only for being remembered [lifekida], as mentioned in the verse, allowing the Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael but not to build the Temple. And this is as it is written with regard to Cyrus’s proclamation permitting the Jewish people’s return to Eretz Yisrael, in the seventieth year of the Babylonian exile: “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The Lord, God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and He has charged [pakad] me to build Him a house in Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:2). The verse makes use of the same root, peh-kuf-dalet, heralding the return to Jerusalem to build the Temple, but not its actual completion. Apropos its mention of Cyrus, the Gemara states that Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda interpreted homiletically a verse concerning Cyrus: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held” (Isaiah 45:1), which seemingly is referring to Cyrus as God’s anointed? Now was Cyrus God’s anointed one, i.e., the Messiah, that the verse should refer to him in this manner? Rather, the verse should be understood as God speaking to the Messiah with regard to Cyrus: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Messiah: I am complaining to you about Cyrus, who is not acting in accordance with what he is intended to do. I had said: “He shall build My House and gather My exiles” (see Isaiah 45:13), but he did not carry this out. Rather, he said: “Whoever is among you of all His people…let him go up to Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:3). He gave permission to return to Israel, but he did no more than that. § The Gemara returns to its interpretations of verses in the Megilla. The Megilla mentions that among those invited to the king’s feast were: “The army of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces” (Esther 1:3), and it is written near the conclusion of the Megilla: “In the book of chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia” (Esther 10:2). Why is Persia mentioned first at the beginning of the Megilla, while later in the Megilla, Media is mentioned first? Rava said in response: These two peoples, the Persians and the Medes, stipulated with each other, saying: If the kings will come from us, the ministers will come from you; and if the kings will come from you, the ministers will come from us. Therefore, in reference to kings, Media is mentioned first, whereas in connection with nobles and princes, Persia is given priority. The verse states: “When he showed the riches of his glorious [kevod] kingdom and the honor of his majestic [tiferet] greatness” (Esther 1:4). Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: This teaches that Ahasuerus wore the priestly vestments. Proof for this assertion may be adduced from the fact that the same terms are written with regard to the priestly vestments, as it is written here: “The riches of his glorious [kevod] kingdom and the honor of his majestic [tiferet] greatness.” And it is written there, with regard to the priestly garments: “For glory [kavod] and for majesty [tiferet]” (Exodus 28:2). The verse states: “And when these days were fulfilled, the king made a feast for all the people that were present in Shushan the capital” (Esther 1:5). Rav and Shmuel disagreed as to whether this was a wise decision. One said: Ahasuerus arranged a feast for the residents of Shushan, the capital, after the feast for foreign dignitaries that preceded it, as mentioned in the earlier verses, indicating that he was a clever king. And the other one said: It is precisely this that indicates that he was a foolish king. The one who said that this proves that he was a clever king maintains that he acted well when he first brought close those more distant subjects by inviting them to the earlier celebration, as he could appease the residents of his own city whenever he wished. And the one who said that he was foolish maintains that he should have invited the residents of his city first, so that if those faraway subjects rebelled against him, these who lived close by would have stood with him. The students of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai asked him: For what reason were the enemies of Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves when exhibiting behavior that is not in their best interests, in that generation deserving of annihilation? He, Rabbi Shimon, said to them: Say the answer to your question yourselves. They said to him: It is because they partook of the feast of that wicked one, Ahasuerus, and they partook there of forbidden foods. Rabbi Shimon responded: If so, those in Shushan should have been killed as punishment, but those in the rest of the world, who did not participate in the feast, should not have been killed. They said to him: Then you say your response to our question. He said to them: It is because they prostrated before the idol that Nebuchadnezzar had made, as is recorded that the entire world bowed down before it, except for Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. They said to him: But if it is true that they worshipped idols and therefore deserved to be destroyed, why was a miracle performed on their behalf? Is there favoritism expressed by God here? He said to them: They did not really worship the idol, but pretended to do so only for appearance, acting as if they were carrying out the king’s command to bow before the idol. So too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not destroy them but did act angry with them only for appearance. He too merely pretended to desire to destroy them, as all He did was issue a threat, but in the end the decree was annulled. And this is as it is written: “For He does not afflict from His heart willingly” (Lamentations 3:33), but only for appearances’ sake. The verse states: “In the court of the garden of the king’s palace” (Esther 1:5). Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to how to understand the relationship between these three places: Court, garden, and palace: One said: The guests were received in different places. One who, according to his stature, was fit for the courtyard was brought to the courtyard; one who was fit for the garden was brought to the garden; and one who was fit for the palace was brought to the palace. And the other one said: He first sat them in the courtyard, but it did not hold them, as they were too numerous. He then sat them in the garden, but it did not hold them either, until he brought them into the palace and it held them. A third understanding was taught in a baraita: He sat them in the courtyard and opened two entranceways for them, one to the garden and one to the palace. The verse states: “There were hangings of ḥur, karpas, and sky blue” (Esther 1:6). The Gemara asks: What is ḥur? Rav said: A fabric fashioned with many holes [ḥarei ḥarei], similar to lace. And Shmuel said: He spread out for them carpets of white wool, as the word ḥavar means white. And what is karpas? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: Cushions [karim] of velvet [pasim]. The verse states: “On silver rods and pillars of marble; the couches were of gold and silver” (Esther 1:6). It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Some couches were of gold and others of silver. One who, according to his stature, was fit for silver sat on a couch of silver, and one who was fit for gold sat on one of gold. Rabbi Neḥemya said to him: This was not done. If so, you would cast jealousy into the feast, for the guests would be envious of each other. Rather, the couches themselves were made of silver, and their feet were made of gold. The verse continues: “Upon a pavement of bahat and marble” (Esther 1:6). Rabbi Asi said with regard to the definition of bahat: These are stones that ingratiate themselves with their owners, as they are precious stones that people are willing to spend large amounts of money to acquire. And similarly, it states elsewhere that the Jewish people will be likened to precious stones: “And the Lord their God shall save them in that day as the flock of His people; for they shall be as “the stones of a crown, glittering over His land” (Zechariah 9:16). The verse concludes: “And dar and soḥaret” (Esther 1:6). Rav said: Dar means many rows [darei darei] around. Similarly, soḥaret is derived from seḥor seḥor, around and around, meaning that the floor was surrounded with numerous rows of bahat and marble stones. And Shmuel said: There is a precious stone in the seaports, and its name is dara, and Ahasuerus placed it in the center of the feast, and it illuminated the festivities for them as the sun illuminates the world at midday. He explains that the word soḥaret is derived from tzohar, a light. A scholar from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a baraita: This means that he proclaimed a remission for all the merchants, absolving them from paying their taxes, understanding that the word dar derives from deror, freedom, and soḥaret from soḥer, merchant. The verse states: “And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, the vessels being diverse [shonim] from one another” (Esther 1:7). The Gemara asks: Why does the verse use the term shonim to express that they are different? It should have said the more proper term meshunim. Rava said: A Divine Voice issued forth and said to them: The early ones, referring to Belshazzar and his people, were destroyed because they used these vessels, the vessels of the Temple, and yet you use them again [shonim]? The verse continues: “And royal wine in abundance [rav]” (Esther 1:7). Rav said: This teaches that each and every guest at the feast was poured well-aged wine that was older [rav] than himself in years. The verse states: “And the drinking was according to the law; none did compel” (Esther 1:8). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “according to the law”? Rabbi Ḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: The drinking was according to the law of the Torah. Just as, according to the law of the Torah, with regard to offerings, the food sacrificed on the altar is greater in quantity than the drink, for the wine libation is quantitatively much smaller than the sacrificial offerings it accompanies, so too, at the feast of that wicked man, the food was greater in quantity than the drink. The verse states: “None did compel” (Esther 1:8). Rabbi Elazar said: This teaches that each and every guest at the feast was poured a drink from wine of his own country, so that he would feel entirely free, as if he were in his home country. The verse continues: “That they should do according to every man’s pleasure” (Esther 1:8). Rava commented on the literal meaning of the verse, which is referring to two men, a man and a man [ish va’ish], and said: The man and man whom they should follow indicates that they should do according to the wishes of Mordecai and Haman. The two of them served as butlers at the feast, and they were in charge of distributing the wine. Why is the verse interpreted in this way? Mordecai is called “man,” as it is written: “There was a certain Jewish man [ish] in Shushan the castle, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair” (Esther 2:5). And Haman is also called man, as it states: “A man [ish] who is an adversary and an enemy, this evil Haman” (Esther 7:6). The verse states: “Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women, in the royal house, which belonged to King Ahasuerus” (Esther 1:9). The Gemara questions why she held the feast in the royal house, a place of men, rather than in the women’s house, where it should have been. Rava said in response: The two of them had sinful intentions. Ahasuerus wished to fornicate with the women, and Vashti wished to fornicate with the men. This explains the folk saying that people say: He with pumpkins and his wife

רמב"ן על בראשית ב׳:ט׳

והיפה בעיני כי האדם היה עושה בטבעו מה שראוי לעשות כפי התולדת כאשר יעשו השמים וכל צבאם פועלי אמת שפעולתם אמת ולא ישנו את תפקידם ואין להם במעשיהם אהבה או שנאה ופרי האילן הזה היה מוליד הרצון והחפץ שיבחרו אוכליו בדבר או בהפכו לטוב או לרע ולכן נקרא "עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע" כי הַ"דַּעַת" יאמר בלשוננו על הרצון... ואפשר שנתכוון הכתוב לענין הזה כשאמר אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם יָשָׁר וְהֵמָּה בִקְשׁוּ חִשְּׁבֹנוֹת רַבִּים (קהלת ז כט) ה"יושר" שיאחוז דרך אחת ישרה וה"בִקְשׁוּ חִשְּׁבֹנוֹת רַבִּים" שיבקש לו מעשים משתנים בבחירה ממנו וכאשר צוהו הקב"ה על העץ שלא יאכל ממנו

Ramban on Genesis 2:9

(1) ...The commentators said that the fruit of this tree gave birth to the sexual desire, and this is why they covered their nakedness after they ate from it. They brought as proof a similar usage of language in the statement of Barzilai haGiladi “I am now eighty years old. Can I tell the difference between good and bad?” (Shmuel II 19:36) which indicates that he had lost the sexual desire. This is not correct in my eyes, because later in this story it says “…and you will be like divine beings who know good and bad.” (Bereshit 3:5) And if you want to say that the snake lied to her, it says further on And the LORD God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad…” (Bereshit 3:22) It has already been said (Pirke d’rabbenu hakadosh, Gate 3, 16) that there were three who spoke the truth and were destroyed from the world, and they are – the snake, the spies and Doeg the Edomite (the Beroti). It seems right in my eyes that the human did what came naturally, just as the heavens and all their host, which do only truth, whose acts are only truth and do not deviate from their appointed task. There is no love in their actions or hate. The fruit of this tree gives birth to the will and desire that those who eat it should choose a thing or its opposite, for the good or the bad. This is why it is called ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,’ because da’at in our language refers to will or intention, as the Sages said ‘we only taught this in a case when his intention is to return…if it is not his intention to clear it out…’ (Pesachim 6a). This is true in biblical Hebrew as well - “what is man that you should know him?,” (Psalms 144:3) meaning that you should care about or desire him, or “I have known him by name…” (Shemot 33:12) meaning that I chose him from all other people. So too the statement of Barzilai haGiladi ‘between good and evil,’ meaning that he had lost his power of discernment and could no longer desire something or be disgusted by it, eating without tasting and hearing without taking pleasure in son. Here in the garden there was no desire for sexual intimacy between the man and his wife, rather at the proper time they joined together and gave birth. Therefore their sexual organs were exposed just as their faces and hands and they were not ashamed of them. After they ate from the tree, the choice was in their hands and they had the will to do evil or go to themselves or others. This is a divine quality from one perspective, just as it was bad for humanity as they now had lust and desire. It is possible that the verse intended this when it said “…God made men straight, but they have engaged in too much reasoning.” (Kohelet 7:29) ‘Straight’ means that one should seize on a single straight path and ‘engaged in too much reasoning’ means that one seeks various acts among which they can choose. When Gd commanded the man not to eat from the tree he did not inform him of this quality of da’at which it imparted, rather Gd simply said ‘from the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden,’ meaning the known one in the middle – don’t eat from it. This is what the woman said to the snake, and only in a later verse does it mention the tree by name “but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it.” (Bereshit 2:17)

מלבי"ם על דניאל ג׳:א׳

(א) השאלות:(א) לאיזה ענין עשה הצלם הזה בהוצאה רבה כזו, והרעיש כל שרי מלכותו להתאסף לבקעת דורא להשתחוות אל פסל מעשי ידי אנוש ובעונש מופלג כזה, הלא דבר הוא?, ומה הסמיכות של מעשה צלם הזה אל הצלם אשר ראה בחלום וידע והודע שיש אלהי האלהים מקים מלכים ומעדה מלכים ואיך כחש לו להשתחוות לפסל זהב שקר נסכו ולא רוח בו?: (ב) נבוכנצר המלך עשה צלם של זהב, רומו ששים אמה, ורחבו שש אמות, והקים אותו בבקעת דורא, כבר באר ר"ס גאון ואחריו השר מהרי"א, שרצה לבטל בזה הוראת החלום, אשר הודיע כי נחרץ מהשמים שאחר ראש הזהב שהוא מלכות בבל תבא מלכות הכסף והנחשת והברזל, שהם מלכים אחרים, עשה הוא פסל בפועל דומה בתבניתו להצלם אשר ראה בחלום, רק שהיה כולו מזהב, וצוה שכל העמים והלשונות ישתחוו אליו, כאלו כולם מקבלים עליהם ברצון את מלכות הזהב שיהיה קיים לדור דור ולא יעבור,

Malbim on Daniel 3:1

...

תפלה מהרב הקדוש רבי מאיר הלוי מאפטא בעהמ"ח אור לשמים זי"ע אשר הרה"ק מראדאמסק בעהמ"ח ספר תפארת שלמה זצוקלה"ה היה רגיל לאומרה בכל יום ערב ובוקר ואמר שהוא סגולה נוראה לפרנסה ולהצלחה לאומרה בכל יום

רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים יָדַעְתִּי כִּי הִנְנִי בְּיָדְךָ לְבַד כַּחֹמֶר בְּיַד הַיּוֹצֵר. וְאִם גַּם אֶתְאַמֵּץ בְּעֵצוֹת וְתַחְבּוּלוֹת וְכָל יוֹשְׁבֵי תֵבֵל יַעַמְדוּ לִימִינִי לְהוֹשִׁיעֵנִי וְלִתְמֹךְ נַפְשִׁי, מִבַּלְעֲדֵי עֻזְּךָ וְעֶזְרָתְךָ אֵין עֶזְרָה וִישׁוּעָה. וְאִם חָלִילָה יַחְפְּצוּ כֻּלָּם לְהָרַע אָז אַתָּה בְּחֶמְלָתְךָ תָּשִׂים עֵינֶיךָ עָלַי וְתַשְׁקִיף עָלַי לְטוֹבָה מִמְּעוֹן קָדְשְׁךָ. הִנֵּה חֲבָלִים נָפְלָה לִי בַּנְּעִימִים, וִישׁוּעָתִי בָּאָה, וְעֶזְרָתִי תִגָּלֶה.
I know that I am in Your Hands alone, like mortar in the hands of the potter. Even if I do all sorts of schemes and all of the people of the whole world are helping me, I understand that if not for Your strength and Your help, there is no hope.

If חס ושלום the entire world was against me and it wants to hurt me, I know that You, with Your mercy, You will turn Your eye to me and You will look down on me for good from Your holy dwelling place, and I will have a pleasant experience, my salvation will come.

מדרש תנחומא, נח ד׳:ה׳

שָׁאֲלוּ תַלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, מִפְּנֵי מַה הֶחֱמִירָה תוֹרָה בַּגַּנָּב יוֹתֵר מִן הַגַּזְלָן, שֶׁהַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, וְהַגַּזְלָן כְּתִיב בֵּהּ וְהָיָה כִּי יֶחֱטָא וְאָשֵׁם וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה וְגוֹ' (ויקרא ה, כג). אָמַר לָהֶן, זֶה הִשְׁוָה כְּבוֹד הָעֶבֶד לִכְבוֹד קוֹנוֹ, וְזֶה לֹא הִשְׁוָה כְּבוֹד עֶבֶד לִכְבוֹד קוֹנוֹ. כִּבְיָכוֹל עָשָׂה עַיִן שֶׁל מַעְלָה כְּאִלּוּ אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה, וְאֹזֶן כְּאִלּוּ אֵין שׁוֹמַעַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: הוֹי הַמַּעֲמִיקִים מֵה' לַסְתִּר עֵצָה וְהָיָה בְמַחְשָׁךְ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם וְגוֹ' (ישעיה כט, טו). וּכְתִיב: וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹא יִרְאֶה יָּהּ וְגוֹ' (תהלים צד, ז). וּכְתִיב: עָזַב ה' אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְאֵין ה' רוֹאֶה (יחזקאל ח, יב).

Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 4:5

The disciples of R. Yohanan the son of Zakkai posed the query: Why does the Torah deal more harshly with a thief than with a robber, inasmuch as a thief is required to pay double or even four- or fivefold the value of what he has stolen, while concerning the robber it is written: Then it shall be, if he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he stole by robbery (Lev. 5:23)? He explained: The robber equates the dignity of the servant with the dignity of the Master, while the thief does not equate the dignity of the servant to that of the Master. He (the thief) acts as though the eyes of the Almighty were unable to see him and His ears were incapable of hearing him. He moves about stealthily while perpetrating his thievery, as though he can be seen by man but not by God. Therefore it says: Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say: “Who seeth us? Who knoweth us?” (Isa. 29:15); They say, the Lord will not see (Ps. 94:7); and it says also: The Lord seeth us not, the Lord has forsaken the land (Ezek. 8:12).