Save "The Whole Megillah - TI 2/19/25
"
The Whole Megillah - TI 2/19/25
בְּאֶחָד בַּאֲדָר מַשְׁמִיעִין עַל הַשְּׁקָלִים וְעַל הַכִּלְאַיִם. בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ קוֹרִין אֶת הַמְּגִלָּה בַּכְּרַכִּין, וּמְתַקְּנִין אֶת הַדְּרָכִים וְאֶת הָרְחוֹבוֹת וְאֶת מִקְוְאוֹת הַמַּיִם, וְעוֹשִׂין כָּל צָרְכֵי הָרַבִּים, וּמְצַיְּנִין אֶת הַקְּבָרוֹת, וְיוֹצְאִין אַף עַל הַכִּלְאָיִם:
On the first of Adar the court proclaims concerning the collection of shekels, i.e., the yearly half-shekel contribution to the Temple treasury made by each adult male for the purpose of buying communal offerings. And they also proclaim with regard to the obligation to uproot forbidden mixtures of diverse kinds of food crops in gardens and fields. And on the fifteenth day of the month of Adar, the Scroll [Megilla] of Esther is read in the cities [kerakim] surrounded by walls from the time of Joshua. And they also repair the roads that were damaged in the winter, and the streets, and the cisterns. And at that time they perform all that is necessary for public welfare. And they also mark the Jewish gravesites anew, so that people would know their location and avoid ritual impurity, as the previous markers may have eroded during the rainy season. And agents of the court also go out to inspect the fields for diverse kinds of food crops, to determine whether or not the farmers had in fact uprooted these seeds after the proclamation on the first of the month. If the agents of the court found that these diverse kinds had not been uprooted, they themselves would uproot them.

(א) מְגִלָּה נִקְרֵאת בְּאַחַד עָשָׂר, בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר, בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, לֹא פָחוֹת וְלֹא יוֹתֵר. כְּרַכִּין הַמֻּקָּפִין חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, קוֹרִין בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר. כְּפָרִים וַעֲיָרוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת, קוֹרִין בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכְּפָרִים מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה:

(ב) כֵּיצַד. חָל לִהְיוֹת יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בַּשֵּׁנִי, כְּפָרִים וַעֲיָרוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, וּמֻקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה לְמָחָר. חָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹ בָּרְבִיעִי, כְּפָרִים מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה וַעֲיָרוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, וּמֻקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה לְמָחָר. חָל לִהְיוֹת בָּחֲמִישִׁי, כְּפָרִים וַעֲיָרוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, וּמֻקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה לְמָחָר. חָל לִהְיוֹת עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, כְּפָרִים מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה, וַעֲיָרוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת וּמֻקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם. חָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, כְּפָרִים וַעֲיָרוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת מַקְדִּימִין וְקוֹרִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה, וּמֻקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה לְמָחָר. חָל לִהְיוֹת אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת, כְּפָרִים מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה, וַעֲיָרוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, וּמֻקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה לְמָחָר:

(ג) אֵיזוֹ הִיא עִיר גְּדוֹלָה, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲשָׂרָה בַטְלָנִים. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן, הֲרֵי זֶה כְפָר. בָּאֵלּוּ אָמְרוּ מַקְדִּימִין וְלֹא מְאַחֲרִין. אֲבָל זְמַן עֲצֵי כֹהֲנִים וְתִשְׁעָה בְאָב, חֲגִיגָה וְהַקְהֵל, מְאַחֲרִין וְלֹא מַקְדִּימִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ מַקְדִּימִין וְלֹא מְאַחֲרִין, מֻתָּרִין בְּהֶסְפֵּד וּבְתַעֲנִיּוֹת וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֵימָתַי, מְקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְנָסִין בְּשֵׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי. אֲבָל מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין נִכְנָסִין לֹא בְּשֵׁנִי וְלֹא בַחֲמִישִׁי, אֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִזְמַנָּהּ:

(ד) קָרְאוּ אֶת הַמְּגִלָּה בַּאֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנִתְעַבְּרָה הַשָּׁנָה, קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ בַּאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי, אֵין בֵּין אֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן לַאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי אֶלָּא קְרִיאַת הַמְּגִלָּה וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים:

(ה) אֵין בֵּין יוֹם טוֹב לְשַׁבָּת אֶלָּא אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ בִּלְבָד. אֵין בֵּין שַׁבָּת לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה זְדוֹנוֹ בִּידֵי אָדָם וְזֶה זְדוֹנוֹ בְּכָרֵת:

(ו) אֵין בֵּין הַמֻּדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לַמֻּדָּר מִמֶּנּוּ מַאֲכָל אֶלָּא דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל וְכֵלִים שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ. אֵין בֵּין נְדָרִים לִנְדָבוֹת אֶלָּא שֶׁהַנְּדָרִים חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן, וּנְדָבוֹת אֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן:

(1) The Megilla is read on the eleventh, on the twelfth, on the thirteenth, on the fourteenth, or on the fifteenth of the month of Adar, not earlier and not later. The mishna explains the circumstances when the Megilla is read on each of these days. Cities [kerakin] that have been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, read the Megilla on the fifteenth of Adar, whereas villages and large towns that have not been walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, read it on the fourteenth. However, the Sages instituted that the villages may advance their reading to the day of assembly, i.e., Monday or Thursday, when the rabbinical courts are in session and the Torah is read publicly, and the villagers therefore come to the larger towns.

(2) How so? If the fourteenth of Adar occurs on Monday, the villages and large towns read it on that day, and the walled cities read it on the next day, the fifteenth. If the fourteenth occurs on Tuesday or Wednesday, the villages advance their reading to the day of assembly, i.e., Monday, the twelfth or thirteenth of Adar; the large towns read it on that day, i.e., the fourteenth of Adar, and the walled cities read it on the next day, the fifteenth. If the fourteenth occurs on Thursday, the villages and large towns read it on that day, the fourteenth, and the walled cities read it on the next day, the fifteenth. If the fourteenth occurs on Shabbat eve, the villages advance their reading to the day of assembly, i.e., Thursday, the thirteenth of Adar; and the large towns and the walled cities read it on that day, i.e., the fourteenth of Adar. Even the walled cities read the Megilla on the fourteenth rather than on the fifteenth, as they do not read it on Shabbat. If the fourteenth occurs on Shabbat, both the villages and large towns advance their reading to the day of assembly, i.e., Thursday, the twelfth of Adar; and the walled cities read it on the day after Purim, the fifteenth. If the fourteenth occurs on Sunday, the villages advance their reading to the day of assembly, i.e., Thursday, the eleventh of Adar; and the large towns read it on that day, i.e., the fourteenth of Adar; and the walled cities read it on the next day, the fifteenth.

(3) What is considered a large city, where the Megilla is read on the fourteenth of Adar? Any city in which there are ten idlers. However, if there are fewer than that, it is considered a village, even if it has many inhabitants. It was with regard to these times for reading the Megilla that the Sages said that one advances the reading of the Megilla before the fourteenth of Adar and one does not postpone the reading to after its proper time. However, with regard to the time when families of priests donate wood for the fire on the altar, which were times those families would treat as Festivals; as well as the fast of the Ninth of Av; the Festival peace-offering that was brought on the Festivals; and the commandment of assembly [hakhel] of the entire Jewish people in the Temple courtyard on Sukkot in the year following the Sabbatical year to hear the king read the book of Deuteronomy; one postpones their observance until after Shabbat and does not advance their observance to before Shabbat. The mishna continues: Even though the Sages said that one advances the time for reading the Megilla and one does not postpone the reading, one is permitted to eulogize and fast on these days, as they are not actually Purim; nevertheless, gifts for the poor are distributed on this day. Rabbi Yehuda said: When is the Megilla read on the day of assembly, before the fourteenth of Adar? In a place where the villagers generally enter town on Monday and Thursday. However, in a place where they do not generally enter town on Monday and Thursday, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time, the fourteenth of Adar.

(4) If the people read the Megilla during the first Adar and subsequently the year was then intercalated by the court and now the following month will be the second Adar, one reads the Megilla again during the second Adar. The Sages formulated a principle: The difference between the first Adar and the second Adar with regard to the mitzvot that are performed during those months is only that the reading of the Megilla and distributing gifts to the poor are performed in the second Adar and not in the first Adar.

(5) 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. 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.

(6) The difference between one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow and one for whom benefit from another’s food is forbidden by vow is only with regard to stepping foot on his property, and with regard to borrowing utensils from him that one does not use in the preparation of food, but for other purposes; as those two benefits are prohibited to the former, but permitted to the latter. The difference between animals consecrated to the Temple as vow offerings and animals consecrated as gift offerings is only that in the case of vow offerings, if they died or were lost before being sacrificed on the altar, one is obligated in the responsibility to replace them, and in the case of gift offerings, if they died or were lost, one is not obligated in the responsibility to replace them.

״אִישׁ יְהוּדִי הָיָה בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה וְגוֹ׳ אִישׁ יְמִינִי״. מַאי קָאָמַר: אִי לְיַחוֹסֵיהּ קָאָתֵי — לְיַחֲסֵיהּ וְלֵיזִיל עַד בִּנְיָמִין! אֶלָּא מַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי? תָּנָא: כּוּלָּן עַל שְׁמוֹ נִקְרְאוּ. ״בֶּן יָאִיר״ — בֵּן שֶׁהֵאִיר עֵינֵיהֶם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּתְפִלָּתוֹ. ״בֶּן שִׁמְעִי״ — בֵּן שֶׁשָּׁמַע אֵל תְּפִלָּתוֹ. ״בֶּן קִישׁ״ — שֶׁהִקִּישׁ עַל שַׁעֲרֵי רַחֲמִים וְנִפְתְּחוּ לוֹ. קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״יְהוּדִי״ — אַלְמָא מִיהוּדָה קָאָתֵי, וְקָרֵי לֵיהּ ״יְמִינִי״ — אַלְמָא מִבִּנְיָמִין קָאָתֵי! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מָרְדֳּכַי מוּכְתָּר בְּנִימוּסוֹ הָיָה. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אָבִיו מִבִּנְיָמִין, וְאִמּוֹ מִיהוּדָה. וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: מִשְׁפָּחוֹת מִתְגָּרוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ. מִשְׁפַּחַת יְהוּדָה אוֹמֶרֶת: אֲנָא גְּרַמִי דְּמִתְיְלִיד מָרְדֳּכַי, דְּלָא קַטְלֵיהּ דָּוִד לְשִׁמְעִי בֶּן גֵּרָא. וּמִשְׁפַּחַת בִּנְיָמִין אָמְרָה: מִינַּאי קָאָתֵי. רָבָא אָמַר: כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל אָמְרָה לְאִידַּךְ גִּיסָא: רְאוּ מָה עָשָׂה לִי יְהוּדִי וּמָה שִׁילֵּם לִי יְמִינִי. מָה עָשָׂה לִי יְהוּדִי — דְּלָא קַטְלֵיהּ דָּוִד לְשִׁמְעִי, דְּאִתְיְלִיד מִינֵּיהּ מָרְדֳּכַי דְּמִיקַּנֵּי בֵּיהּ הָמָן. וּמָה שִׁילֵּם לִי יְמִינִי — דְּלָא קַטְלֵיהּ שָׁאוּל לַאֲגָג, דְּאִתְיְלִיד מִינֵּיהּ הָמָן דִּמְצַעַר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם מִבִּנְיָמִן קָאָתֵי, וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״יְהוּדִי״? עַל שׁוּם שֶׁכָּפַר בָּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. שֶׁכׇּל הַכּוֹפֵר בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נִקְרָא ״יְהוּדִי״, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״אִיתַי גּוּבְרִין יְהוּדָאיִן וְגוֹ׳״.
The verse that initially describes Mordecai states: “There was a certain Jew in Shushan the castle, whose name was Mordecai the son of Jair the son of Shimei the son of Kish, a Benjamite” (Esther 2:5). The Gemara asks: What is it conveying in the verse by saying the names of Mordecai’s ancestors? If the verse in fact comes to trace his ancestry, it should continue tracing his lineage back all the way to Benjamin, the founder of his tribe. Rather, what is different about these names that they deserve special mention? The Gemara answers: A Sage taught the following baraita: All of them are names by which Mordecai was called. He was called “the son of Jair” because he was the son who enlightened [heir] the eyes of all of the Jewish people with his prayers; “the son of Shimei” because he was the son whom God heard [shama] his prayers; “the son of Kish” because he knocked [hikish] on the gates of mercy and they were opened to him. The Gemara points out a contradiction: Mordecai is referred to as a “Jew [Yehudi],” apparently indicating that he came from the tribe of Judah, but in the continuation of the verse he is called “Benjamite” [Yemini], which indicates that he came from the tribe of Benjamin. Rav Naḥman said: Mordecai was crowned with honorary names. Yehudi is one such honorary epithet, due to its allusion to the royal tribe of Judah, but it is not referring to Mordecai’s tribal affiliation. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said an alternative explanation: Mordecai’s father was from the tribe of Benjamin, and his mother was from the tribe of Judah. Therefore, he was both a Yemini, a Benjamite, and a Yehudi, from the tribe of Judah. And the Rabbis say that the dual lineage is due to a dispute: The families competed with each other over which tribe could take credit for Mordecai. The family of Judah would say: I caused the birth of Mordecai, as only because David did not kill Shimei, the son of Gera, when he cursed him (see II Samuel 16) was it possible for Mordecai to be born later from his descendants. And the family of Benjamin said in response: In the end he came from me, as he in fact was from Benjamin’s tribe. Rava said: The Congregation of Israel at the time said this from the opposite perspective, not as a boast, but as a complaint, remarking: See what a Judean has done to me and how a Benjamite has repaid me. What a Judean has done to me is referring to the responsibility of Judah, as David did not kill Shimei, although he was liable to the death penalty. The grave consequences of this failure included that Mordecai was born from him, and it was he against whom Haman was jealous, leading Haman to issue a decree against all of the Jewish people. And how a Benjamite has repaid me is referring to the fact that Saul, who was from the tribe of Benjamin, did not kill the Amalekite king Agag immediately, from whom Haman was later born, and he caused suffering to the Jewish people. Rabbi Yoḥanan said a different explanation of the verse: Actually, Mordecai came from the tribe of Benjamin. Why, then, was he referred to as Yehudi? On account of the fact that he repudiated idol worship, for anyone who repudiates idolatry is called Yehudi. It is understood here in the sense of yiḥudi, one who declares the oneness of God, as it is written: “There are certain Jews [Yehuda’in] whom thou hast appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylonia, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego; these men, O king, have not regarded you: They serve not your gods, nor worship the golden image which you have set up” (Daniel 3:12). These three individuals were in fact Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who were not all from the tribe of Judah but are referred to as Yehuda’in because they repudiated idol worship.
״אֲשֶׁר הׇגְלָה מִירוּשָׁלַיִם״, אָמַר רָבָא: שֶׁגָּלָה מֵעַצְמוֹ. ״וַיְהִי אוֹמֵן אֶת הֲדַסָּה״, קָרֵי לַהּ ״הֲדַסָּה״ וְקָרֵי לַהּ ״אֶסְתֵּר״? תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֶסְתֵּר שְׁמָהּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ הֲדַסָּה — עַל שֵׁם הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ הֲדַסִּים. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהוּא עוֹמֵד בֵּין הַהֲדַסִּים״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הֲדַסָּה שְׁמָהּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרֵאת שְׁמָהּ אֶסְתֵּר? עַל שֵׁם שֶׁהָיְתָה מַסְתֶּרֶת דְּבָרֶיהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֵין אֶסְתֵּר מַגֶּדֶת אֶת עַמָּהּ וְגוֹ׳״. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: הֲדַסָּה שְׁמָהּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרֵאת אֶסְתֵּר? שֶׁהָיוּ אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ עַל שׁוּם אִסְתַּהַר. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: אֶסְתֵּר, לֹא אֲרוּכָּה וְלֹא קְצָרָה הָיְתָה, אֶלָּא בֵּינוֹנִית כַּהֲדַסָּה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אָמַר: אֶסְתֵּר — יְרַקְרוֹקֶת הָיְתָה, וְחוּט שֶׁל חֶסֶד מָשׁוּךְ עָלֶיהָ. ״כִּי אֵין לָהּ אָב וָאֵם״ — ״וּבְמוֹת אָבִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ״ לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַב אַחָא: עִיבְּרַתָּה — מֵת אָבִיהָ, יְלָדַתָּה — מֵתָה אִמָּהּ. ״וּבְמוֹת אָבִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ לְקָחָהּ מׇרְדֳּכַי לוֹ לְבַת״, תָּנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״לְבַת״ אֶלָּא לְבַיִת. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְלָרָשׁ אֵין כֹּל כִּי אִם כִּבְשָׂה אַחַת קְטַנָּה אֲשֶׁר קָנָה וַיְחַיֶּהָ וַתִּגְדַּל עִמּוֹ וְעִם בָּנָיו יַחְדָּו מִפִּתּוֹ תֹאכַל וּמִכּוֹסוֹ תִשְׁתֶּה וּבְחֵיקוֹ תִשְׁכָּב וַתְּהִי לוֹ כְּבַת״, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְחֵיקוֹ תִשְׁכָּב הֲווֹת לֵיהּ (לְבַת)? אֶלָּא — (לְבַיִת) הָכִי נָמֵי לְבַיִת. ״וְאֵת שֶׁבַע הַנְּעָרוֹת וְגוֹ׳״. אָמַר רָבָא: שֶׁהָיְתָה מוֹנָה בָּהֶן יְמֵי שַׁבָּת. ״וַיְשַׁנֶּהָ וְאֶת נַעֲרוֹתֶיהָ וְגוֹ׳״. אָמַר רַב: שֶׁהֶאֱכִילָהּ מַאֲכָל יְהוּדִי.

“Who had been exiled from Jerusalem” (Esther 2:6). Rava said: This language indicates that he went into exile on his own, not because he was forced to leave Jerusalem. He knew that he would be needed by those in exile, and therefore he consciously left Jerusalem to attend to the needs of his people. The verse states: “And he had brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther” (Esther 2:7). She is referred to as “Hadassah” and she is referred to as “Esther.” What was her real name? It is taught Rabbi Meir says: Esther was her real name. Why then was she called Hadassah? On account of the righteous, who are called myrtles [hadassim], and so it states: “And he stood among the myrtles [hahadassim]” (Zechariah 1:8). Rabbi Yehuda differs and says: Hadassah was her real name. Why then was she called Esther? Because she concealed [masteret] the truth about herself, as it is stated: “Esther had not yet made known her kindred nor her people” (Esther 2:20). Rabbi Neḥemya concurs and says: Hadassah was her real name. Why then was she called Esther? This was her non-Hebrew name, for owing to her beauty the nations of the world called her after Istahar, Venus. Ben Azzai says: Esther was neither tall nor short, but of average size like a myrtle tree, and therefore she was called Hadassah, the Hebrew name resembling that myrtle tree. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: Esther was called Hadassah because she was greenish, having a pale complexion like a myrtle, but a cord of Divine grace was strung around her, endowing her with a beautiful appearance. The verse initially states: “For she had neither father nor mother” (Esther 2:7). Why do I need to be told in the continuation of the verse: “And when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter”? Rav Aḥa said: This repetition indicates that when her mother became pregnant with her, her father died, and when she gave birth to her, her mother died, so that she did not have a mother or a father for even a single day. The verse states: “And when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter” (Esther 2:7). A tanna taught a baraita in the name of Rabbi Meir: Do not read the verse literally as for a daughter [bat], but rather read it as for a home [bayit]. This indicates that Mordecai took Esther to be his wife. And so it states: “But the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and reared: And it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his bread, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was like a daughter [kevat] to him” (II Samuel 12:3). The Gemara questions: Because it lay in his bosom, it “was like a daughter to him”? Rather, the parable in II Samuel referenced the illicit taking of another’s wife, and the phrase should be read: Like a home [bayit] to him, i.e., a wife. So too, here, Mordecai took her for a home, i.e., a wife. The verse states: “And the seven maids chosen to be given her out of the king’s house” (Esther 2:9). Rava said: She would have a separate maid attend her each day, and she would count the days of the week by them, so she was always aware when Shabbat was. The verse continues: “And he advanced her and her maids to the best place in the house of the women.” Rav said: The advancement in the verse signals that he fed her food of Jews, i.e., kosher food.