This question will collect questions, formatted for the book, for questions about the megillah.


Please draw your questions from this list, starting with ones that have been noted as ready for publication. Or if you want to do a different question, review it, edit the original in any way needed, and then note its publication readiness.

When you take a question, cross it off the list. (Don't delete it.)



Please complete submissions by Wednesday, February 26 so we have time to compile the supplement in time for Purim.


| |

What meaning do the names of the ten sons of Haman have?

Joan asked: Is there a meaning behind the names of the ten sons of Haman who were killed and hung (Esther 9:7–9)? They are פַּרְשַׁנְדָּתָא (Parshandasa), דַּלְפוֹן (Dalphon), אַסְפָּתָא (Aspasa), פּוֹרָתָא (Porasa), אֲדַלְיָא (Adalia), אֲרִידָתָא (Aridasa), פַּרְמַשְׁתָּא (Parmashta), אֲרִיסַי (Arisai), אֲרִידַי (Aridai), and וַיְזָתָא (Vaizasa).

Michoel answered: R. Mordechai Sasson (1747–1830), in his work דבר בעתו, explains that Haman symbolizes the Yetzer Harah (evil inclination), and his ten sons allude to its ten bad character traits. Their death, brought about by Mordechai and Esther, represents the nullification of such evil traits by being overpowered by the Yetzer Tov (good inclination). He goes through the ten sons, and explains the meaning of each name and how each corresponds to a particular type of evil:



Original question: What meaning do the names of the ten sons of Haman have? mi.yodeya.com/q/28326

- Joan mi.yodeya.com/u/2733
- Michoel mi.yodeya.com/u/1535

| |
  • Instead of or in addition to the HB link for Davar Be'ito, it might be good to have a paper-bibliographic reference. – Isaac Moses Feb 14 '14 at 15:12
  • @IsaacMoses, good now? – msh210 Feb 14 '14 at 15:54
  • 1
    Thanks! I guess we still need to determine whether we're doing a bibliography in the back, in which case we'd need a fully-formatted record. If so, there's enough information here to populate one. – Isaac Moses Feb 14 '14 at 15:57

Why was Esther afraid to go to the King the second time, but not the first time?

Seth J asked: When Mordechai told Esther that two of the King's guards were plotting to kill him, she went right away to tell the king directly (2:22).

Yet when Mordechai later asked her to approach the king to save all the Jews, she resisted and said she couldn't approach him without having been summoned (4:10 and on).

What happened?

J. C. Salomon answered: The Persian kings had a well-established process—a secret police, even—for reporting threats against the crown. (Source: Rabbi Yehuda Landy’s Purim and the Persian Empire, quoting historical sources.) Esther may have used those channels rather than approaching the king directly.

This may explain why Mordechai was not rewarded immediately: although his name was entered into the record (since Esther told the king—or his agents—in Mordechai’s name (2:22)), initial credit for the report would have been given to Esther.



See Rashi to Esther 4:14, explaining Mordechai's response:




Original question: Why was Esther afraid to go to the King the second time, but not the first time? mi.yodeya.com/q/26589

- Seth J mi.yodeya.com/u/5
- J. C. Salomon mi.yodeya.com/u/70
- Menachem mi.yodeya.com/u/603

| |

Why did Esther make her second party?

SimchasTorah asked: What was the purpose of the two parties that Esther made for Haman and Achashverosh (Esther 5:4–8 and chapter 7), if one could have done the job? In other words, what happened that she needed a second party?

Alex answered: R' Yonasan Eibeschutz explains as follows:

When Esther entered Achashverosh's throne room, a place full of idols, the Divine Presence left her (Gemara Megillah 15b). She realized, then, that such a place is not suitable for a miracle to take place. So she was going to have to get Achashverosh someplace where none of these would be present in order to be successful in her mission; the one place in the palace where that would be the case would be in her own private apartments. So she invited Achashverosh there for a party, and (for reasons listed in the Gemara there) had to invite Haman too.

The problem was that Haman came wearing his favorite outfit, the one on which he had embroidered a design of an idol (Esther Rabbah 7:5). So that spoiled her plan, and she needed to try again.

The next day was the one where Haman ended up having to lead Mordechai in procession around the city. Naturally, he didn't want his "god" having to witness his humiliation! So he wore a different outfit. Now Esther seized her chance: almost as soon as he got home, covered in filth and thoroughly discouraged, "the king's attendants arrived and made him hurry to Esther's party" (6:14) — that was at her instigation, so that he wouldn't have time to change into the outfit with the embroidered images. And so indeed the second party was free of idols, and Esther felt free to make her plea, which indeed was successful.

msh210 suggested: The Tora T'mima (note 16, to 5:4) gives, in the G'ra's name, something that may perhaps also serve as a reason she wanted to put off her revelation a day: she wanted him handy at sof nidasah, since that is a good time for instigating an argument between Haman and Achashverosh. (However, it's clear from there that she knew of this reason when she asked Mord'chay to fast, so I don't know why she couldn't put off the fast a day and have only the "second" party.) (No source for its being a possible answer to this question.)

He also noted: Some of the various reasons given in the g'mara (M'gila 15 amud 2) for Ester's inviting Haman — such as to make sure the Jews not depend on her being their friend in high places and cease praying, to appear to be befriending Haman so as to get him killed, and that pride comes before a fall — are strengthened by her giving two parties rather than one. (No source.)

Shalom answered: It builds a lot more suspense. Achashverosh was more likely to respond to her plea if she'd built up more suspense first. (No source.)


Original question: Why did Esther make two parties; why not just one? mi.yodeya.com/q/5835

- SimchasTorah mi.yodeya.com/u/87
- Alex mi.yodeya.com/u/37
- msh210 mi.yodeya.com/u/170
- Shalom mi.yodeya.com/u/21

| |

Would Esther really have kept silent?

'none' asked: In Esther 7:4 we read:

וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי כִּי אֵין הַצָּר שֹׁוֶה בְּנֵזֶק הַמֶּלֶךְ


Is this true? Had, in fact, the entire Jewish population been sold as slaves, would Esther not have said a word about it? Is this simply hyperbole? How do we understand this?


Shalom answered: Esther knew she had to tread lightly. Ask for too much, and she'd find herself queen no longer.




Shmuel Brin also answered: I saw an answer in the Midrash Rabba (end of Pesichta 3). Esther was saying that she would be silent, since it could be that they deserved to be sold as slaves. After all, the Torah says in the Tochacha (Admonition) that if the Jews don't keep the Torah they will be sold as slaves.


Original question: Would Esther really have kept silent? mi.yodeya.com/q/14737

- none mi.yodeya.com/u/1255
- Shmuel Brin mi.yodeya.com/u/732
- Shalom mi.yodeya.com/u/21

| |

Why do we honor Charvona, specifically?









The Rebbetzin's Husband answered:






Ahron answered: According to the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 10:9), Charvona was really Eliyahu HaNavi, and it is for that reason that we mention him here. (See Maharil (Hilchos Purim), Hagahos Maimonios (Hilchos Megillah 1:6), Chida (Kisei Rachamim to Sofrim 14:3).)

Original question: mi.yodeya.com/q/311

- Isaac Moses mi.yodeya.com/u/2
- Shalom mi.yodeya.com/u/21
- WAF mi.yodeya.com/u/3
- Shtikler mi.yodeya.com/u/58
- The Rebbetzin's Husband mi.yodeya.com/u/59
- efrex mi.yodeya.com/u/-1
- Ahron mi.yodeya.com/u/139

| |
  • Note: efrex's account is gone. Thus, there's nothing to link to. Can we use his/her quotation without a linking attribution (under the license in place on the site in March 2010)? – msh210 Feb 20 '14 at 1:34
  • (Followup on previous comment.) The Wayback Machine tells me the license was cc by-sa 3.0, which means we should be fine. Note though that cc by-sa 3.0 requires us to link to (or include) the license itself, which we should do. (I'll mention that somewhere more central, so it doesn't get lost.) (IANAL.) – msh210 Feb 20 '14 at 1:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .