Rashi wrote commentary on the whole of the Torah, including the Pentateuch, Prophets and Writings, besides on Chronicles that is only attributed to Rashi. The supercommentary of the Rebbe on Rashi was however focused primarily on the commentary on the Pentateuch. The reason for this is as indicated in the reasoning given for the commentary itself: the study of Rashi on Shabbat is based on the clause in Jewish law that the commentary of Rashi may serve in the place of the Aramaic translation of Onkelos in the context of the custom to read each Shabbat the Torah, twice in Hebrew and one with the Targum. Rabbi Joseph Karo writes that a G-d-fearing person should read the Rashi commentary, in addition to the Targum. While the reading of Rashi was never enacted amongst most people, the in-depth study of a comment of Rashi each Shabbat, at a Shabbat farbrengen was in the context of this custom. This is not relevant however to the commentary of Rashi on the Prophets or Writings (n’ach). Furthermore, the study of Rashi on the Pentateuch had a particular significance to the biblical interpretation of p’shat, as the Pentateuch serves as the source for all the biblical commandments that must be understood literally in order to be relevant. This is not the case with Rashi’s commentary on the Prophets and Writings that does not need to follow p’shat.[1]
Nevertheless, during the twenty-five period of delivering studies on the comments of Rashi on Shabbat, the only other part of the Torah that Rebbe incorporated in this study was Rashi on the Book of Esther. While this didn’t take place every Purim, it happened sufficiently, and in a manner similar to the studies on Rashi on the Pentateuch – with the starting point being a series of questions on Rashi’s comment on a particular verse. While a farbrengen took place almost every Purim, besides 1988,[2] the focused studies on a comment of Rashi in Esther, at the Purim farbrengen or in close proximity to Purim, covered a total of seven focused studies between 1965 and 1981.
It seems that the Rebbe initially intended to include in the series of studies of Rashi on the Torah also commentary of Rashi on Esther. As with the studies on Rashi on the Torah, this was only planned to take place during the year, 1964-5 (5725). In 1965, the study did not occur on Purim itself, but rather on Shabbat Parshat Tzav that was in close proximity to Purim (16 Adar II). This was introduced by stating that, as this year we are occupied in the study of Rashi on the Torah, this also includes Rashi’s commentary on the Book of Esther. The study in Rashi on Esther was not similar to other studies in 1965, that focused on the beginning and end of the Parsha, but rather related to Esther 8:14. The structure on this occasion was first a study on the first verse of the weekly Torah portion of Tzav, followed by the study in Rashi on Esther, followed by the study in Rashi on the last verse of the Torah portion of Tzav. This reflected a full integration of the study of Rashi on Esther into the series of studies of Rashi on the Torah that had been the custom during that year, 1964-5.
Although the studies on Rashi continued even after the completion of the first year, despite completing the initial series of studying the first and last Rashi in every Parsha, the studies in the Book of Esther did not seem to initially continue. Indeed, the following year, 1966 (5726), there was no study on Rashi on the Book of Esther. This may have been because Purim fell out on Sunday and there was no farbrengen held on the following Shabbat (Parshat Yitro).
However, the custom to incorporate the Book of Esther into the Rashi series occurred the following year and not confined to the Shabbat in closest proximity to Purim.[3] This caused for the first time for the series of studying a comment of Rashi in depth to be extended also to a weekday and not limited to a Shabbat farbrengen. Despite this, it did not extend to other Books of the Scripture, beyond the Book of Esther.
The pretext for the continuation of the studies on Rashi on Esther and to a weekday, in this case, came in response to the Rebbe’s desire to engage the community in his study on Rashi by urging people to submit questions in advance or afterwards, which he would respond to. Before Purim 1967, someone had submitted a question on a comment of Rashi on the Book of Esther relating to chapter 1 verse 8: ‘And the drinking was according to the law [with] no one coercing, for so had the king ordained upon every steward of his house, to do according to every man's wish.’ The argument presented was that why should Esther be to blame by the fact that Purim never falls on a Shabbat outside Jerusalem. He therefore requested that a study on Rashi on the Book of Esther should be studied on Purim, even though it did not coincide with Shabbat.[4] In 1967 (5727), Purim in fact fell on Sunday and a study in Rashi was presented in response to the questions posed.
The study of Rashi on the Book of Esther was not consistent, however. There was no study on Rashi in 1966, and also not between 1968 and 1972. In 1973, when occurred on a Sunday, the custom seems to have been re-established, when the Rebbe stated before studying the comment of Rashi on the first and last verse in Esther: as is customary in recent years to explain a comment of Rashi on Esther.[5] Interestingly, it was only in 1973, that the Rebbe reflected on the first and last verse in Esther, similar to the style adopted in 1965.[6]
In 1974, when Purim fell on Friday and Shushan Purim was on Shabbat (Parshat Ki Tisa), a study was given priority and studied, before the study on Rashi related to the Parsha, focused on Esther 9:28: ‘And these days shall be remembered and celebrated throughout every generation, in every family, every province, and every city, and these days of Purim shall not be revoked from amidst the Jews, and their memory shall not cease from their seed.’ A rationale for studying a comment of Rashi on Esther on the Shushan Purim – day after Purim – when falling on Shabbat was explained - since there is a commonality between them: Shushan Purim is the celebration of Purim in walled cities, like Jerusalem, since the days of Joshua. As a wall has significance on Shabbat, since when the gates of a walled cities are closed it changes for the purpose of carrying on Shabbat from a public to a private domain, Shabbat also represents a kind of wall - a distinction between the holy and the mundane.[7]
In 1976, when Purim fell on a Tuesday, a study on Rashi on Esther was resumed on Esther 2:5: ‘There was a Judean man,’ and a number of related verses, with the introduction that ‘it is customary from time to time (m’zman l’zman) to study a comment on Rashi on Esther, as we study a comment on Rashi on the Chumash.’In 1977 (5737), when Shabbat coincided with Shushan Purim, a study on Rashi was delivered, first on Parshat Tetzaveh, followed by a study on Rashi’s comment on the verse in Esther 9:29: ‘Now, Queen Esther, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew wrote down all [the acts of] power, to confirm the second Purim letter.’[9] A further study on Rashi on Esther took place in 1979 on Purim that fell out on a Tuesday, and pertained, not to a particular comment of Rashi, but the absence of an explanation by Rashi regarding the omission of G-d’s name in the whole of the Book of Esther, as well as the omission of a reason why the Jewish people are called in Esther only by the name ‘Yehudi,’ as opposed to any of the other names given to the Jewish people in the Torah, including: Jacob, Israel or Yeshurun. In 1979, the study on Rashi on Esther was challenged and responded to with more clarity regarding both questions on the following Shabbat Parshat Ki Tisa.[10] The final study on Rashi on Esther appears to have taken place in 1981 on the Shabbat that coincided with the day after Purim - Shushan Purim, and related to the words in the verse in Esther 8:9: ‘It was written…according to their script.’
Reluctance
While the studies on Esther became an established custom, there appears to have been a lingering reluctance towards this tradition. The Rebbe related on one occasion that something has to be done also with the Rashi commentary on Esther (mdarf doch epes tan mit der Rashi of der Megillah). On the same occasion the Rebbe suggested that while one relies on Shabbat or Saturday night (motzo-ei Shabbat) to study a comment of Rashi (zucht men a Shabbos), with Purim, there is no choice (b’les b’reira), but to study the Rashi on the days of Purim and Shushan Purim.[11] The reason for this reluctance appears to be since one may not expect Purim to be ideal time for in-depth analytical Torah study, due to the commandment that one should become intoxicated on Purim. In 1967, the Rebbe indicated when saying: we will now study a comment of Rashi on Esther and we see what we can achieve during Purim, since we are in any event not yet in a situation of intoxication to the degree of not knowing the difference between blessed is Mordechai and cursed is Haman.[12] In 1966, the Rebbe encouraged the literal view regarding the fulfilment of the commandment to become intoxicated on Purim - to the degree that one should full a sleep, as per the view of Maimonides:.[14] In 1977, when Purim was on Friday and due to preparations for Shabbat, the fulfilment of being intoxicated should take place on Shabbat – Shushan Purim, it would be a justified reason for not being able to listen to the questions posed on Rashi, or propose answers.[15]
P’shat in nach
The premise for extending the commentary of the Rebbe on Rashi to include also Esther is that it would be subject to the same methodology as the analyses of the comments of Rashi on the Torah. This would subject Rashi on Esther to the same need to confirm to p’shat as in his commentary on the Torah.
Although when analysing the Rebbe’s commentary on Rashi on Esther, the methodology is the same, a distinction is made between Rashi on the Torah and nach. The principle is presented in 1965 that while Torah is bound to be understood following p’shat, the nach does not always need to follow p’shat.[16] In the edited work of Likkutei Sichot, however, the Rebbe argues that Rashi on nach also comments following p’shat but that it may not be as close to p’shat as Rashi is on the Torah.
An example of this is I Samuels 15:3, where it states: ‘Now, go, and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him: and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’ Rashi quotes: ‘ox and sheep,’ and offers an interpretation that is not so conventional in the context of p’shat: ‘for they were sorcerers, and they would change themselves to resemble animals.’[17] Similarly, on Ecclesiastes 11:6, it states: ‘In the morning, sow your seed, and in the evening, do not withhold your hand.’ Rashi comments that is refers to the physical seed, as in children, but also referring figuratively to Torah study.[18] The same can be found on Psalms 106:7: ‘and they were rebellious by the sea, by the Sea of Reeds,’ where Rashi on Psalms quotes a non-literal explanation from the Talmud: ‘They had little faith; they said, “Just as we ascend from here, from this side, the Egyptians also are ascending from another side, and they will come after us,” until the Holy One, blessed be He, hinted to the sea, and it vomited them out onto the dry land. Then (Exod. 15:30) “Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore.” Therefore (ibid. verse 31) “they believed in the Lord,” but in the beginning, they did not believe. I found this.’ In Exodus (15:22), a simpler explanation is given in Rashi: ‘He led them away against their will, for the Egyptians had adorned their steeds with ornaments of gold, silver, and precious stones, and the Israelites were finding them in the sea.’ A question is raised in a footnote in Likkutei Sichot, that there needs to be an investigation whether Rashi follows his principle to follow only p’shat in his commentary on nach, as he states in his commentary on the Torah.[19]
A reason why Rashi may not be limited to p’shat in his commentary on nach, as opposed to the Torah, is since a student studying Rashi on nach, would have already studied Rashi’s commentary on the Pentateuch and therefore is in a position in his progress on the ladder of being able to levels of biblical interpretation and to move beyond p’shat,[20] as implied in the statement in Ethics of the Fathers:[21] ‘At five years of age the study of Scripture; At ten the study of Mishnah; At thirteen subject to the commandments; At fifteen the study of Talmud.’
Despite the hesitation whether one can apply the same methodology of strictly p’shat to Rashi’s commentary on Nach to the same degree as to Rashi on the Torah, the premise to the commentary on Rashi on Esther is predicated on the idea that one can indeed subject Rashi on Esther to the same method of p’shat as on Rashi on the Torah.
This is argued in 1967, when the Rebbe demonstrates that a comment of Rashi appears redundant and repetitious as it is only a slight rewording of the biblical text itself. The Rebbe argues that may be understood however when realising that it is intended to negate a Talmudic interpretation that is also plausible in the context of p’shat, but since it is not to the same degree of p’shat as Rashi prefers in his commentary, he negates the Talmudic interpretation.
The same is true regarding the ability to explain the absence of a comment on Esther regarding a critical question in the biblical text addressed in the Talmud. The reason for the absence of a comment may be explained by a plainer reading of the narrative in the book of Esther itself.[22] In 1974 it is further argued that Rashi on Esther is subject to p’shat, as argued regarding his commentary on the Torah, to the degree that it must be understood to the level of understanding of a five-year-old child.[23]
Nevertheless, despite the above, on numerous occasions, the Rebbe argues that even if Rashi on the nach follows p’shat, it is not as close to the p’shat as in his commentary on the Torah. An example of this is, on Joshua (15:63), Rashi states: ‘The descendants of Yehudah were unable to expel them (inhabitants from Jerusalem). We learned in Sifri: “Rabbi Yehoshua be Korcho says, ‘They were really able [to expel them] but they were not permitted to do so because of the oath that Abraham had sworn to Avimelech.’ In Rashi on Deuteronomy (12:17), it states the reason why Joshua was not permitted to expel them was ‘because Abraham had made a covenant with them when he bought from them the Cave of Machpelah that they would be spared at the conquest of the Land.’ The reason for this difference is because according to p’shat, in Genesis 21:23, Abraham only made the promise to three generations, but not longer. This would have expired at the time of Joshua, unless they had unusual longevity. For this reason, Rashi on the Torah prefers to cite the promise of Abraham to the Hitites that was relevant to their (Hitites’) inhabitation of Jerusalem without any expiration. This case reflects the difference between the Rashi on nach and the Torah, that while the overall comment follows p’shat, the precision of the detailed wording will not necessarily be as closely committed to the p’shat on nach, as it is on the Torah.[24]
In conclusion, while there is a reluctance to apply the exact same degree of p’shat to nach, as found on the Torah, the Rebbe views the principle statement of Rashi on Genesis 3:8: ‘I have come only to explain the simple meaning of the Scripture,’ combined with a statement of Rashi on Esther 1:7: ‘and the vessels differed from one another,’ whereby Rashi concludes: ‘our Sages expounded what they expounded,’ that the narrowest understanding of p’shat applies not only to Rashi’s commentary on the Torah but also to the Book of Esther, if not to the whole of the Prophets and the Writings.
Commentaries
To demonstrate the commitment to p’shat in Rashi’s commentary on Esther, we will present a number of studies of Rashi on Esther in order of the years delivered to offer an outline of the methodology of the Rebbe in deciphering Rashi’s commentary according to p’shat. In the unedited works of the Rebbe, in Sichot Kodesh, there are seven focused talks addressing a comment of Rashi on Esther.
1. Sequence of wording – p’shat (1965) – they hastened the couriers
Esther 8:14: ‘The couriers, those who ride the king's steeds, the camels, went out hastened and pressed by the king's order, and the edict was given in Shushan the capital.’ This refers to when after the decree to annihilate the Jewish people was annulled by the king, it was communicated to all the provinces. The question that arises is: when exactly was the initial decree that the Jewish people may be killed, was annulled. Rashi comments that this came into effect only after the second couriers caught up with and overtook the first couriers. Rashi comments on the word: ‘hastened’ and writes: ‘They hastened them to act swiftly, because they had no time, since they had to get ahead of the first couriers to overtake them.’ This is however difficult to understand since all the other commentators suggest that the cancellation of the first decree took place immediately, when the king cancelled the decree. The reason for the haste was only so that the king would not change his mind. In addition, the Talmud suggests also otherwise, that the second letter to destroy the Jewish people was in any case ineffective, since it was ridiculed in light of the first letter that only stated the obvious (in ancient times)[25] that man should rule over his household.[26] This being the case, what is the source for Rashi to go to such an extreme to say that the decree was intact and only annulled once the couriers overtook the first couriers? The comment of Rashi may be however understood in light of the literal reading of the biblical text. The verse has two parts: a. ‘The couriers, those who ride the king's steeds, the camels, went out hastened and pressed by the king's order’ and b. ‘the edict was given in Shushan the capital.’ It would have made more sense to have stated the reverse: first the edict was given in the capital and then the couriers hastened to communicate the edit to the provinces. The fact that it states first the couriers went out in haste and then the edict was given in the capital suggests that the edicts coming into effect in the capital was subject to the couriers arriving in the provinces. Since the departure or arrival in the provinces by the couriers in itself does not enact the edict, as there is no logic for that to be of consequence, it makes sense that the verse is suggesting that it is the overriding of the first courier in haste by the second couriers that enacts this annulment. As is evident in this study the it is the sequence of the wording in the biblical verse that informs Rashi’s comment.
2.according to the wish of every man
The second study in Rashi that came in response to a single questionEsther 1:8, where it states regarding the custom set by the king regarding the feast: ‘And the drinking was according to the law [with] no one coercing, for so had the king ordained upon every steward of his house, to do according to the wish of every man (lit: man and man – ish v’ish).’ Rashi comments on the words: ‘to do according to the wish of every man: ‘for each one his desire.’ The question on the text of Rashi is: what is Rashi adding with his comment? It seems to be identical as the biblical text, just in slightly different wording. The Rebbe answers that Rashi is deliberately negating the teaching found in the Talmud that ‘man and man’ refers to the wishes from Mordechai and Haman, since it is too distant from p’shat. The Talmud states:[28]
The verse states: “That they should do according to every man’s pleasure” (Esther 1:8). Rava said: The ‘man and man’ whom they should follow indicates that they should do according to the wishes of Mordecai and Haman. 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 argument is twofold: that it is practically impossible that so many diverse people should follow the desires and preferences of wine of just two individuals. Furthermore, it cannot mean practically that each person at the feast was served the wishes of both, Mordechai and Haman, since they are so different: the wine of Mordechai would have been very different than the wine of Haman, who would have served non-kosher wine. Rashi therefore clarifies that it is referring to the individual desires of each individual at the feats, not of two individuals: Mordechai and Haman.[29] The implication of this interpretation is that according to Rashi, following p’shat, without even a need to state it explicitly is that the Jews attending the feast were served kosher food – following the wishes of each person. The purpose the Book of Esther, then, informs the narrative about the feast, although it is not critical to the story of the survival of the Jewish people, is to suggest that the sin committed was the participating in the feast itself, rejecting the reasons given in the Talmud: eating not kosher food at the feast or prostrating before an idol.[30] The Rebbe concludes this study by pointing out that the fact that Rashi does not even find it necessary to state explicitly the nature of the sin of the Jewish people in relation to the feast is because it is so self-explanatory from the biblical text, indicating the insistence of Rashi on Esther in following the interpretations of the biblical text in Esther that is the closest to the p’shat, as per his principal on Genesis 3:8: I have only come to explain the plain meaning of Scripture.[31]
3. Quoting a midrash (1973) - he was the Ahasueru
Esther 1:1: ‘Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus -- he was the Ahasuerus who reigned from Hodu to Cush, one hundred twenty-seven provinces.’ The question that arises is why the repetition: ‘he was the Ahasuerus?’ From a literal reading of the text, there is no difficulty because it is customary for the biblical text to speak in this manner. This can be found in Exodus 6:26 and 27: ‘That is Aaron and Moses, to whom the Lord said, "Take the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt with their legions." They are the ones who spoke to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to let the children of Israel out of Egypt; they are Moses and Aaron.’[32] The Talmud however comments:[33]
The Talmud continues: “This is [hu] Ahasuerus” (Esther 1:1); the term hu, this is, comes to teach that he remained as he was in his wickedness from beginning to end. Similarly, wherever the words “this is” appear in this manner, the verse indicates that the individual under discussion remained the same from beginning to end, for example: “This is [hu] Esau” (Genesis 36:43); he remained in his wickedness from beginning to end. “This is [hu] Dathan and Abiram” (Numbers 26:9); they remained in their wickedness from beginning to end. “This is [hu] the king Ahaz” (II Chronicles 28:22); he remained in his wickedness from beginning to end. The Gemara continues: The word hu is also used to recognize sustained righteousness. “Abram, this is [hu] Abraham” (I Chronicles 1:27); this indicates that Abraham didn’t change, as he remained in his righteousness from beginning to end. Similarly, “This is [hu] Aaron and Moses” (Exodus 6:26); they remained in their righteousness from the beginning of their life to the end of their life. Similarly, with respect to David: “And David, this was [hu] the youngest” (I Samuel 17:14), indicates that he remained in his humility from beginning to end. Just as in his youth, when he was still an ordinary individual, he humbled himself before anyone who was greater than him in Torah, so too, in his kingship, he humbled himself before anyone who was greater than him in wisdom.
Following the Talmud, Rashi comments on Esther 1:1: ‘he was the Ahasuerus: He was equally wicked from beginning to end.’ It would appear that in this case Rashi is diverging from the p’shat for the sake of a midrashic interpretation, that is not necessary or found in the text itself. The Rebbe defends Rashi’s comment by arguing that this is not merely a borrowing of a midrashic interpretation from the Talmud but implied in the text of Esther itself. This is due to the fact that at the end of Esther it states:For Mordecai the Jew was viceroy to King Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews and accepted by most of his brethren; seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to all their seed.’ The reason for the fact that only Mordechai was only accepted by most of his brothers was because his colleagues in the Sanhedrin did not approve of Mordechai remaining in royal government affairs after the Jewish people had already been saved. A reason must however be given for why Mordechai remained in royal affairs afterwards. The reason for this is because the king was wicked from beginning until the end. In this context, the need for Rashi to adopt the midrashic interpretation is not merely linguistical but because of the statement in the Book of Esther itself at the end of the Book of Esther why Mordechai was only in favour amongst most of his brethren. This demonstrates that Rashi adopts a midrashic interpretation but only when necessary from within the context of the biblical text itself, thus consistent with the commitment of Rashi to p’shat. [35]
4. Rejecting a midrash (1974) - every family
A further study demonstrates the rejection of a midrashic teaching in the comment of Rashi. In Esther 9:28, it states: ‘And these days shall be remembered and celebrated throughout every generation, in every family, every province, and every city, and these days of Purim shall not be revoked from amidst the Jews, and their memory shall not cease from their seed.’ Rashi comments: ‘every family: gather together and feast and drink together, and so they took upon themselves that the Purim days would not be revoked.’ Rabbi Issachar Berel Ben Yehudah of Luntschitz explains that Rashi is following a Talmudic teaching[36] that connects joy with longevity of the commandments: ‘every mitzvah that the Jewish people accepted upon themselves with joy, such as circumcision…they still perform with joy.’
The Rebbe rejects this interpretation of Rashi, since Rashi, following p’shat, would not rely on a homiletical of the Talmud to explain a verse in Esther.[37] The explanation is however far simpler: the two concepts mentioned in Rashi ‘gather together’ and ‘feast and drink together’ refers to the reading of the Megillah, as he had already explained relating to the beginning of the same verse: ‘hall not be revoked from amidst the Jews, and their memory shall not cease from their seed.’[38] This explanation, then, explains the term ‘family’ literally. The Rebbe argues that the underlying reason for this comment is to reject the Talmudic interpretation on this verse, that does not follow p’shat in his view. The Talmud states:
Now that you have said that the phrases “every province” and “every city” appear for the purposes of midrashic exposition, for what exposition do the words “every family” appear in that same verse (Esther 9:28)? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: These words come to include the priestly and Levitical families, and indicate that they cancel their service in the Temple and come to hear the reading of the Megilla.
The idea that the word ‘family’ in this verse is to inform that the priestly family must interrupt the service in the Talmud to hear the Megillah maybe part of biblical interpretation on the level of allegory (remez) but in the context of p’shat is not a suitable interpretation.[39]
5. - son of Jair the son of Shimei the son of Kishn
In Esther 2:5, it presents Mordechai with an extensive lineage. It states: ‘There was a Judean man in Shushan the capital, whose name was Mordecai the son of Jair the son of Shimei the son of Kish, a Benjamite.’ Rashi presents an interpretation for the use of the name ‘Judean man:’ ‘because he was exiled with the exile of Judah;">presents an interpretation for the use of the name ‘Benjamin:’ ‘He was from Benjamin.’ Rashi then concludes, however: ‘That is the simple meaning, but our Sages explained what they explained.’ Rashi is alluding to interpretations given in the Talmud for all these names, but stops short from quoting the teaching, since the Talmud suggests that all these names are in fact different names for Mordechai himself. The Talmud states:[40]
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 G-d heard [shama] his prayers; “the son of Kish” because he knocked [hikish] on the gates of mercy and they were opened to him. …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.
This identification of numerous names with Mordechai is not suitable for p’shat, since it is not unusual for the Torah to list a lineage of a person for three generations. The Rebbe argues that by Rashi alluding to the Talmudic teaching but not actually quoting it, indicates that these reasons indeed address a question that arises in the text according to p’shat - with no other suitable explanation – but, as mentioned, the interpretation is not suitable following p’shat. The question that it addresses is: why does the Book of Esther need to bring such an extensive lineage? It does not seem to contribute to the story of the plot or the miracle.
The same point is made in two other places in Rashi on Esther: On Esther 1:7, it states: ‘And they gave them to drink in golden vessels, and the vessels differed from one another, and royal wine was plentiful according to the bounty of the king.’ Rashi comments: ‘different from each other, and likewise, (Esther 3:8) “and their laws differ,” and our Sages expounded what they expounded.’ According to Rashi, there is a valid question in the text but no suitable answer as to what the information about having more than one type of vessel contributes to our perception about the great opulence of the king.
The same question arises in Esther 2:9: ‘And the maiden pleased him, and she won his favour, and he hastened her ointments and her portions to give [them] to her, and the seven maidens fitting to give her from the king's house, and he changed her and her maidens to the best [portions in] the house of the women.’ Rashi comments: ‘fitting to give to her: to serve her, and so they would do for all of them; and our Sages explained what they explained.’ The question that arises without a suitable answer in p’shat is: once the verse states: ‘and he changed her and her maidens to the best [portions in] the house of the women,’ the statement ‘and the seven maidens fitting to give her from the king's house’ seems underwhelming and not adding anything in the narrative about the opulence being showed to Esther because of her beauty.[41]
6.all [the acts of] power
In Esther 9:29, it states: ‘Now, Queen Esther, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew wrote down all [the acts of] power, to confirm the second Purim letter.’ Rashi comments that the words: ‘all [acts of] power’ refers to ‘the power of the miracle of Ahasuerus, of Haman, of Mordecai, and of Esther.’[42] The source for the comment of Rashi is from a dispute in the Talmud regardingwhat constitutes the core text of Esther that satisfies the obligation of reading the Megillah:[43]
Beginning from where must a person read the Megilla in order to fulfill his obligation? Rabbi Meir says: He must read all of it. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need read only from “There was a certain Jew” (Esther 2:5). Rabbi Yosei says: From “After these things” (Esther 3:1). It is taught in a baraita that there is a fourth opinion as well: Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai says: One must start to read from “On that night” (Esther 6:1).
The Talmud continues to state that all four opinions are arguing about the interpretation of the words: ‘acts of power’ in the above verse:
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And all were expounding the same verse. As it is stated: “Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote about all the acts of power to confirm this second letter of Purim” (Esther 9:29). The one who said that the Megilla must be read in its entirety interprets “acts of power” as referring to the power of Ahasuerus, and so the Megilla must be read from the beginning, where the power of Ahasuerus is recounted. And the one who said that it needs to be read from “There was a certain Jew” explains that “acts of power” is referring to the power of Mordecai. And the one who said that it needs to be read from “After these things” maintains that “acts of power” is referring to the power of Haman. And the one who said that it needs to be read from “On that night” understands that the expression is referring to the power of the miracle, which began on that night when Ahasuerus could not sleep, and therefore one must begin reading the Megilla from there.
Rashi, however, combines the four conflicting opinions into one comment that ‘acts of power’ refers to all of the above. The source of Rashi’s comment, then, is derived not from the Talmud that disputes which ‘acts of power’ it is referring to but rather from the verse itself that states: ‘all acts of power’ – with the emphasis ‘all,’ implying a plurality.[44] In conclusion, while Rashi appears to be presenting a Talmudic teaching, he in fact rejecting the teaching as it is found in the Talmud and presenting it within the context of p’shat – the plain reading of the verse.
7.the absence of G-d’s name and the name Yehudi
In the Book of Esther, one finds two peculiarities: the absence of G-d’s name and the sole name of the Jewish people as Yehudi, instead of the classic names given in the Torah – Israel, Jacob or Yeshurun.[45] Rashi’s commentary on Esther, however, does not address these two issues on the level of p’shat, suggesting they are self-explanatory in the text. The Talmud[46] discusses a dialogue between Esther and the Sages for the Book of Esther to be incorporated as part of the twenty-four Holy Scriptures,[47] suggesting the name of G-d should appear. In the context of p’shat, however, the reason it does not appear is due to the description of the text of Esther, as being a letter – igeret, as it states (9:29): ‘Then Queen Esther daughter of Abihail wrote a second letter of Purim for the purpose of confirming with full authority the aforementioned one of Mordecai the Jew.’ Since a letter, by definition, is subject to discarding, it would have been inappropriate to have G-d’s name written in it,
In chapter 2:5, it states that Mordechai was called Yehudi, as it states: ‘In the fortress Shushan lived a Jew (Yehudi) by the name of Mordecai.’ Rashi explains, the reason why he was called Yehudi, is, because he was exiled to Babylon with the exile of Judah (Yehudah). In Esther 3:6, it further describes the Jewish people as ‘Mordechai’s people,’ as it states: ‘But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone;">Since the subject of Esther – the decree against the Jewish people in Persia, their survival and celebration of the holiday - was all in connection with Mordechai and the authority vested in him by the king, that enabled for the establishment of the holiday - for this reason the Jewish people were not called by any other name, other than Yehudim, whether it was referring to those who came with him to Babylon from Judah or earlier or later. As this is all self-explanatory on the level of p’shat within the text of Esther, there is no need for Rashi to address this in a comment. [49] This demonstrates the accuracy of Rashi’s commentary that he only addresses matters that need explaining on the level of p’shat.
8. According to their script (1981)
In Esther 9:27: The Jews ordained and took upon themselves and upon their seed and upon all those who join them, that it is not to be revoked to make these two days according to their script and according to their appointed time, every year.
Rashi: according to their script: that the Scroll [of Esther] should be written in the Ashuri script.
An earlier verse in Esther 8:9: ‘And the king's scribes were summoned at that time, in the third month-that is the month of Sivan-on the twenty-third day thereof, and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded, to the Jews and to the satraps and the governors, and the princes of the provinces from Hodu to Cush, a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, every province according to its script and every nationality according to its tongue, and to the Jews according to their script and according to their tongue.’ Rashi comments: according to its script: with its characters.
The reason for this discrepancy is due to the two verses referring to two different types of letters: the first was to communicate the people instructions regarding the reading of the Megillah and how to celebrate the holiday with the customs of the holiday for eternity. This had to be written in a script that was official script. The second verse was written in the vernacular.
5781, vol. 2, p. 730 & 742.
Conclusion
Based on the above, there are the following categories of teachings in Rashi on Esther; 1. p’shat that is brought in negation of a known Talmudic interpretation on a particular verse. 2. Midrashic interpretation that is suitable to brought without variation but derived only within the context of p’shat. 3. Midrashic interpretation that is suitable to be brought but only with variation, since it is derived from p’shat. 4. Midrashic interpretations that are not suitable in the context of p’shat but nevertheless alluded to in the commentary of Rashi, since they address a question in the verse that requires answering on the level of p’shat - but there is no suitable answer. 5. A further category are questions that arises in the text but in the view of Rashi, following p’shat, requires no comment at all as they are self-explanatory. In conclusion, when carefully examining Rashi’s commentary on Esther, one can detect the same methodology of commentary as on the Torah: a very deliberate commentary that follows the p’shat and therefore quotes or rejects midrashic commentary, or indeed ignores commenting at all, when it is suitable to do so within this context. As Esther is part of the Writings, the same is true regarding the methodology of Rashi’s commentary on all the books of Prophets and Writings, as well, as a single corpus.[50]
Manuscripts
In the studies on Rashi on Esther a single reference is made regarding the need to investigate the manuscript versions of Rashi on Esther. This is in the context of the study on Esther1:8: ‘And the drinking was according to the law [with] no one coercing, for so had the king ordained upon every steward of his house, to do according to every man's wish.’ Rashi appears to merely be repeating the final words in the verse with alternative wording: instead of ‘to do according to every man’s (lit. man and man – Heb. ish v’ish) wish’ – Rashi comments: ‘for each one (l’kol echad v’echad) his desire.’ The reason given in the Rebbe’s commentary is that Rashi is negating the midrashic interpretation found in the Talmud that ‘man and man’ refers to the desires of Mordechai and Haman, who are both referred to as ‘man’ (ish) in Esther. By negating this interpretation, it demonstrates Rashi’s commitment to p’shat. In this context, the suggestion is made that one should investigate the manuscripts to see possible variants, since in an earlier edition there may be an abbreviation (roshei teivot) for the words ‘ish v’ish’ (alef, vav, alef), which is exactly the same abbreviation and thus may have been confused with the words: ‘echad v’echad.’[51]
When looking in two manuscript editions of Rashi on Esther found in Oxford, there are indeed two versions, though neither in abbreviated form: in MS. Oppenheim 34 (1201-1225), it states in full, as in printed versions: ‘for each person, his wishes (al kal e-chad v-echad re’tzono).’[52] In Oxford’s earliest 12th century manuscript of Rashi, CCCMS165, however, it has a completely different comment all together. It follows the Talmudic interpretation[53] that it refers to Mordechai and Haman: ‘Rava said: they should do according to the wishes of Mordecai and Haman.’ This appears to suggest the opposite of what the Rebbe is arguing in his commentary – that Rashi follows only p’shat. It is possible however that it is the very consideration that is the cause for the variants in the manuscripts regarding this comment.
Only two focused studies on Rashi on Esther edited
Esther 1:8: to do according to every man’s wish: man and man, for each one his desire.[54] In addition, a further talk is summarised in a footnote in Likkutei Sichot, vol. 16, relating to the connection between the first and last verse in Esther.[55] It’s unclear what the reason is for why the majority of the studies on Esther were excluded from the edited works on Rashi in his 39 volume Likkutei Sichot.[56]
List of studies
1.Esther 8:14: The couriers, those who ride the king's steeds, the camels, went out hastened and pressed by the king's order, and the edict was given in Shushan the capital. Rashi: hastened: ">
a. Torat Menachem, vol. 43, p. 105 (5725)
2.Esther 1:8: And the drinking was according to the law [with] no one coercing, for so had the king ordained upon every steward of his house, to do according to every man's wish. Rashi: to do according to every man’s wish: ">
a. Sichot Kodesh 5727, vol. 1, p. 467-476. Torat Menachem, vol. 49, p. 225 (5727); Likkutei Sichot 36:161
3.Esther 1:1: Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus -- he was the Ahasuerus who reigned from Hodu to Cush, one hundred twenty-seven provinces. Rashi: he was the Ahasuerus: ">
a. Sichot Kodesh 5733, p. 415; Likkutei Sichot 16: 377 f. 27.
4.Esther 9:28: ‘And these days shall be remembered and celebrated throughout every generation, in every family, every province, and every city, and these days of Purim shall not be revoked from amidst the Jews, and their memory shall not cease from their seed.’ Rashi: every family: gather together and feast and drink together, and so they took upon themselves that the Purim days would not be revoked.
a. Sichot Kodesh 5734, p. 413
5.a. Esther 2:5: There was a Judean man in Shushan the capital, whose name was Mordecai the son of Jair the son of Shimei the son of Kish, a Benjamite. Rashi:
a. a Judean man: because he was exiled with the exile of Judah; all those who were exiled with the kings of Judah were called יְהוּדִים [Judeans, Jews] among the nations, even if they were from another tribe.
b. a Benjamite: He was from Benjamin. That is the simple meaning, but our Sages explained what they explained.
c. Esther 2:9: fitting to give to her: to serve her, and so they would do for all of them; and our Sages explained what they explained.
d. Sichot Kodesh 5736, vol. 1, p. 415.
6.Esther 9:29: Now, Queen Esther, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew wrote down all [the acts of] power, to confirm the second Purim letter. Rashi: all [acts of] power: the power of the miracle of Ahasuerus, of Alaman, of Mordecai, and of Esther.
a. Sichot Kodesh 5737, p. 518.
7.a. Esther 9:27: The Jews ordained and took upon themselves and upon their seed and upon all those who join them, that it is not to be revoked to make these two days according to their script and according to their appointed time, every year.
a.Rashi: according to their script: that the Scroll [of Esther] should be written in the Ashuri script.
b. Esther 8:9: ‘And the king's scribes were summoned at that time, in the third month-that is the month of Sivan-on the twenty-third day thereof, and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded, to the Jews and to the satraps and the governors, and the princes of the provinces from Hodu to Cush, a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, every province according to its script and every nationality according to its tongue, and to the Jews according to their script and according to their tongue.’ Rashi: according to its script: with its characters.
5781, vol. 2, p. 730 & 742.
[1] Torat Menachem 5725, Shabbat Parshat Matot-Masei, vol. 44, p. 138. See also Likkutei Sichot 30:29, footnote.
[2] Purim that year fell within the thirty days of mourning after the passing of the Rebbetzin Chaya Mushka on 22 Shevat/10 February, 1988.
[3] See Sichot Kodesh 5736, p. 617, where a comparison is made between Purim and Shabbat.
[4] Torat Menachem 5727, vol. 49, p. 225.
[5] Sichot Kodesh 5733, vol. 1, p. 415.
[6] Sichot Kodesh 5733, vol. 1, p. 415. Likkutei Sichot 16:377 f.27.
[7] Sichot Kodesh 5734, vol. 1, p. 413.
[8] Sichot Kodesh 5736, vol. 1, p. 638.
[9] Sichot Kodesh 5737, p. 518 and 526-30.
[10] Sichot Kodesh 5739, vol. 2, p. 308.
[11] Sichot Kodesh 5739, vol. 2, p. 274.
[12] Torat Menachem 5727, vol. 49, p. 225.
[13] Mishneh Torah, Laws of Megillah 2:15.
[14] Torat Menachem 5726, vol. 46, p. 179 f.234. Talmud Megillah 7b.
[15] Sichot Kodesh 5737, vol. 1, p. 519.
[16] Torat Menachem 5725, vol. 44, p. 139.
[17] Likkutei Sichot 14:87 f.10.
[18] Likkutei Sichot 30:29 f.47.
[19] Likkutei Sichot 14:6 f34. Likkutei Sichot 13:92, f.42. Likkutei Sichot 5:180, f.3.
[20] Likkutei Sichot 14:78, f.10.
[21] Ethics of the Fathers 5:21.
[22] Sichot Kodesh 5727, vol. 1, p. 468 and 474.
[23] Sichot Kodesh 5734, vol. 1, p. 413.
[24] Likkutei Sichot 29:81 f. 26.
[25] See commentary on the Talmud Megillah 12b.
[26] Talmud Megillah 12b: The king sent out letters to the people of all his provinces, in which it was written: “That every man shall wield authority in his own house and speak according to the language of his people” (Esther 1:22). Rava said: Were it not for the first letters sent by Ahasuerus, which everybody discounted, there would not have been left among the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves, a remnant or a refugee.’ Rashi on the Talmud explains further that because of the first letter, the nations thought of the king as a fool, but had it not been for the first letter, the nations would have harried to kill the Jews on the command of the king and would not even have waited for the designated date. This comment of Rashi on the Talmud further illustrates the lack of urgency of the couriers to override the first couriers to annul the decree, suggesting the edict in the capital would have certainly be adequate. The reference to the Talmud in this question on Rashi only appears in the Hebrew translation of the study on Rashi in Torat Menachem, not in the original Sichot Kodesh.
[27] Sichot Kodesh 5767, vol. 1, p. 467.
[28] Talmud Megillah 12a.
[29] Siftei Chachamim argues that Rashi is negating the idea that the king satisfied everyone’s desires at the same time – an impossibility, but rather at different times the wishes of everyone at the feast was met.
[30] Talmud Megillah 12a.
[31] Sichot Kodesh 5767, vol. 1, p. 467-476. Torat Menachem, vol. 49, p. 225 (5727). Likkutei Sichot 36:161. The main point made in Sichot Kodesh about the negation of the Talmudic teaching that the will of Mordechai and Haman was followed at the feast, seems to be encapsulated in just a single footnote in Likkutei Sichot 36:164 f.24.
[32] Rashi indeed brings a similar comment on the verse in Exodus 6:27: ‘they are Moses and Aaron: They remained in their mission and in their righteousness from beginning to end.’ This may be however because of its repetition one verse apart. It would not however be necessary as a matter of language in the same sentence.
[33] Talmud Megillah 11a.
[34] Esther 10:3.
[35] Sichot Kodesh 5733, p. 415.
[36] Talmud Shabbat 130a.
[37] A second reason is Rashi only quotes: ‘every family’ from the verse, suggesting these are the words that informs his reasoning why the holiday should not be revoked.
[38] Sichot Kodesh 5734, p. 416.
[39] Sichot Kodesh 5734, vol. 1, p. 416.
[40] Talmud Megillah 12b-13a.
[41] Sichot Kodesh 5736, vol. 1, p. 648-652.
[42] In MS Opp. 34 (1201-1225), fol. 26, and CCCMS165, fol. 385, Esther is omitted. A reason for this is since it doesn’t state Esther in the context of this verse in the Talmud Megillah 19a. It just says ‘tok-po shel nes’ – power of the miracle. However, it does say Esther further on in the Talmud in the context of the verse (Esther 9:26–27): ‘and of that which they saw concerning this matter, and that which had befallen them, the Jews ordained...that they would keep these two days, ‘thus the reason why it may have been added in other edition, including the printed edition, since, as we will argue, in the view of the Rebbe, the comments of Rashi on both these verses are interlinked.
[43] Talmud Megillah 19a.
[44] Sichot Kodesh 5737, vol. 1, p. 518 and 526-9. Furthermore, in the Hebrew, it adds the proposition: ‘et’ before kol tokef - ‘all the acts of power.’ This follows familiar biblical exegesis that is already known from Genesis (4:1-2): ‘and she begot ‘et’ Cain’ – that ‘et’ adds to the explicit meaning of Scripture. In our case this would further include all the ‘acts of power’ mentioned in Esther. In addition, in the Talmud, the order follows how the personalities are presented in Esther: Ahasuerus (1:1), Mordechai (2:5), Haman (3:1). Rashi lists Haman before Mordechai, based on the way natural occurrences, that were in fact workings of G-d, happened, as indicated in the comment of Rashi on Esther 9:26: ‘and what happened to them: What did Ahasuerus see that he used the sacred vessels, and what happened to them? That Satan came and danced among them and slew Vashti. And what did Haman see that he became envious of Mordecai, and what happened to him? They hanged him and his sons. And what did Mordecai see that he did not kneel or prostrate himself, and what did Esther see that she invited Haman?’
[45] Sichot Kodesh 5739, vol. 2, p. 274.
[46] Talmud Megillah 7a.
[47] Talmud Megillah 7a. Rashi on Esther (9:32): ‘And Esther’s ordinance validating these observances of Purim was recorded in a scroll’ comments: ‘Esther requested of the Sages of the generation to commemorate her and to write this book with the rest of the Scriptures, and that is the meaning of “and inscribed in the book.”’
[48] Rashi does not dispute in p’shat the correspondence between Esther and the sages regarding her request to incorporate Esther in Scripture. On Esther 9:32, Rashi writes: ‘Esther requested of the Sages of the generation to commemorate her and to write this book with the rest of the Scriptures, and that is the meaning of “and inscribed in the book (ba-sefer).”’ The text of the Book of Esther, as part of Scripture, however, is the exact same text that was sent to the provinces to establish the holiday, as recorded in Esther 9:29. It was first called igeret (letter) and, when accepted by the sages as part of scripture, was called Sefer (book). The Rebbe’s argument is that since its initial status was a temporary ‘letter,’ it would have precluded it from having G-d’s name written in it. It would seem that in the view of the Rebbe, the Talmud maintains there were two separate documents and therefore the broadly asked question, why the sages did not include G-d’s name is a valid question. Incidentally, the words in the above-mentioned comments of Rashi: ‘and that is the meaning of’ before: “and inscribed in the book (va-nichtav ba-sefer)” is omitted in CCCMS165 and MS Opp. 34. It is however highlighted in Likkutei Sichot 16, footnote.
[49] Sichot Kodesh 5739, vol. 2, p. 282-284 & 308-317.
[50] Igrot Kodesh of Rabbi Menachem. M. Schneerson 27:302.
[51] Sichot Kodesh 5727, vol. 1, p. 470. See Likkutei Sichot 36:164 f.24, where it says ‘one need to examine the manuscripts.’
[52] Fol. 225: https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/4a83e8ab-6ca2-45c2-b24d-7a53736a5d13/surfaces/cb0a4e51-4747-4d16-83c6-81a05a8531ab/.
[53] Talmud Megillah 12a.
[54] Torat Menachem, vol. 49, p. 225 (5727); Likkutei Sichot 36:161.
[55] Likkutei Sichot 16:377 f. 27.
[56]References in Likkutei Sichot are however scattered throughout the Rebbe’s talks in the context of other subjects, also. This includes explanations on the following five verses: 1. Rashi on Esther 1:1: Rashi: from Hodu to Cush, etc.: He reigned over one hundred twenty-seven provinces as he reigned from Hodu to Cush, which are situated alongside one another, and so [we explain] (I Kings 5:4): “For he had dominion over all [the inhabitants of] this side of the river, from Tiphsah even to Gaza,” meaning that he had dominion over all the inhabitants of this side of the river, just as he had dominion from Tiphsah to Gaza (Likkutei Sichot 16:3;"> 2. Rashi on Esther 2:16: in the tenth month: the cold season, when one body enjoys [the warmth of] another body. The Holy One, blessed be He, designated that cold season in order to endear her to him (Likkutei Sichot 15:382).Esther 5:4: let the king and Haman come: Our Sages stated many reasons for the matter. What did Esther see (i.e., what motivated her) to invite Haman? In order to make the king and the princes jealous of him, that the king should think that he desired her and kill him, and many other reasons (Likkutei Sichot 16:84). 4. Rashi on Esther 9:10: but on the spoil they did not lay their hands: so that the king should not cast an envious eye on their money (Likkutei Sichot 14:90). 5. Rashi on Esther 9:32: Now Esther’s order confirmed, etc: Esther requested of the sages of the generation to commemorate her and to write this book with the rest of the Holy Writings, and that is the meaning of “and it was inscribed in the book” (Likkutei Sichot 16:353).Esther 10:3: and accepted by most of his brethren: but not by all his brethren, for part of the Sanhedrin disassociated from him when he became close to the government and neglected his studies (Likkutei Sichot 16:373).