act like a winner and you will be a winner

 t the end of the megillah Esther begs Achashveirosh to rescind the decree against Bnei Yisrael (8:5):

יִכָּתֵ֞ב לְהָשִׁ֣יב אֶת־הַסְּפָרִ֗ים מַחֲשֶׁ֜בֶת הָמָ֤ן בֶּֽן־הַמְּדָ֙תָא֙ הָאֲגָגִ֔י

Achashveirish responds that he cannot do that, as once promulgated, the law cannot be rescinded. But what he can do is send another letter allowing the J to fight back (8:8):

אַתֶּ֠ם כִּתְב֨וּ עַל־הַיְּהוּדִ֜ים כַּטּ֤וֹב בְּעֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ בְּשֵׁ֣ם הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וְחִתְמ֖וּ בְּטַבַּ֣עַת הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ כִּֽי־כְתָ֞ב אֲשֶׁר־נִכְתָּ֣ב בְּשֵׁם־הַמֶּ֗לֶךְ וְנַחְתּ֛וֹם בְּטַבַּ֥עַת הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ אֵ֥ין לְהָשִֽׁיב׃

Everyone is thrilled! Time to celebrate!

לַיְּהוּדִ֕ים הָֽיְתָ֥ה אוֹרָ֖ה וְשִׂמְחָ֑ה וְשָׂשֹׂ֖ן וִיקָֽר׃

R' Chaim Kanievsky asks: why were people already jumping for joy? They weren't out of the woods yet! They would have to fight a war against the Aggagi - Amaleiki. According to some Rishonim the reason we have taanis Esther is because that was the day we gathered for battle. People's lives were still on the line.

R' Chaim answers (Taama d'Kra) that this was a deliberate ploy by Mordechai. If you act like a winner, people think you are a winner.  People treat you like a winner.  Mordechai said to act like the battle was won, like they held all the cards now. It may not have been true, but the point is that it gave the impression that it was true. רַבִּ֞ים מֵֽעַמֵּ֤י הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ מִֽתְיַֽהֲדִ֔ים כִּֽי־נָפַ֥ל פַּֽחַד־הַיְּהוּדִ֖ים עֲלֵיהֶֽם Psychologically, the tide had turned.  One that happens, the battle is in the bag.

A couple of years ago I quoted the SHL"h's interpretation of the midrash

תשורי מראש אמנה

עתידין ישראל לומר שירה לעתיד לבוא, שנאמר: (תהלים צח, א)שירו לה' שיר חדש כי נפלאות עשה.

What's the double language of עתידין ישראל לומר שירה לעתיד לבוא? If it is עתידין then it obviously is לעתיד לבוא? Says the SHL"H: when we reach the ultimate geulah, we won't wait for the miracles to all happen before we start praising Hashem. עתידין in the future we will sing shirah to Hashem לעתיד לבוא, on the miracles that we know and are confident are going to happen, even if they haven't occurred yet (there is a R' Chaim that is against this approach, but not everyone has to agree with R' Chaim.)

Maybe לַיְּהוּדִ֕ים הָֽיְתָ֥ה אוֹרָ֖ה וְשִׂמְחָ֑ה וְשָׂשֹׂ֖ן וִיקָֽר because at that moment we were on the level of celebrating in anticipation of the nes rather than as a reaction afterwards. Maybe it was that bitachon that the nes will happen, that we will be victorious, which itself is the driving force that brought victory to fruition.

the zechus Achashveirosh had that gave him a queen like Esther

The gemara (Meg 12b) explains why it was that Vashti was ordered to appear nude at the party of Achashveirosh . Chazal say that there was a midah k'neged midah at work here:

שבמדה שאדם מודד בה מודדין לו מלמד שהיתה ושתי הרשעה מביאה בנות ישראל ומפשיטן ערומות ועושה בהן מלאכה בשבת

The gemara then brings a source in the pesukim for this derash:

היינו דכתיב אחר הדברים האלה כשוך חמת המלך אחשורוש זכר את ושתי ואת אשר עשתה ואת אשר נגזר עליה כשם שעשתה כך נגזר עליה

There is an amazing Shem m'Shmuel which notes that when the pasuk tells זכר את ושתי ואת אשר עשתה ואת אשר נגזר עליה, we have to keep in mind the context. The megillah is not just relating to us, for our sake, the what and why of what happened. The megillah is telling us **Achashveirosh's understanding** of the what and the why. The pasuk is a window into the goings on in Achashveirosh's mind. He is the one thinking about Vashti. He is the one who was wondering why such a terrible thing should happen to his queen. And he is the one who understood that the answer is שבמדה שאדם מודד בה מודדין לו , that she was paid back exactly in kind for her crime. This was not some random event that occurred because the party got out of hand, but rather it was a precisely calibrated response to Vashti's actions.

Did you even wonder why such a simpleminded, wicked (perhaps) man like Achashveirosh was zocheh to be married to a great tzadekes like Esther haMalkah? OK, so Esther had to be in that position to effect a rescue of Klal Yisrael, but ha'yad Hashem tiktzar to put some other plan into effect?  Revach v'hatzalah yaa'mod la'Yehudim mi'makom acheir had Esther not been queen.  Says the Shem m'Shmuel: it was because of this recognition by Achashveirosh that שבמדה שאדם מודד בה מודדין לו. Esther is all about revealing the yad Hashem that is hidden in the events of history.   Megillah = giluy, to be megaleh and reveal that which is hester/ Esther. Achashveirosh on his own level had something of that midah in recognizing זכר את ושתי ואת אשר עשתה ואת אשר נגזר עליה, that שבמדה שאדם מודד בה מודדין לו.   If something happens, there is a reason behind it, there is yad Hashem that is behind it.

The holiday of Purim is about seeing the yad Hashem in the hester, in the day to day.  This year we are witness to nisim v'niflaos.  You have to be blind to not see it.  Some people are blind, and some people prefer to put on blinders.  

bigdei kehunah - kedushas damim or kedushas ha'guf; the price for enjoyment of an aveira

The gemara (Meg 12) tells us that Achashveirosh threw the grand party described at the opening of the megillah because he thought the 70 years of galus had ended. Since the expected date of our redemption had come and gone and nothing had happened, he wanted to celebrate our downfall. At that party, he put on the bigdei kehuna:

בהראותו את עושר כבוד מלכותו א"ר יוסי בר חנינא מלמד שלבש בגדי כהונה כתיב הכא יקר תפארת גדולתו וכתיב התם לכבוד ולתפארת

A little further down on the same amud the gemara tells us that he also took out the klei ha'mikdash to use at this party:

והשקות בכלי זהב וכלים מכלים שונים משונים מיבעי ליה אמר רבא יצתה בת קול ואמרה להם ראשונים כלו מפני כלים ואתם שונים בהם

The two gemaras ae similar, but there is one big difference between them. The second gemara tells us that a bas kol came out to protest what Achashveirosh was doing. Balshatazar had tried the same thing; he also thought the 70 years were up and made a big party, and he was killed. The bas kol cried out, "Achashveirosh, you didn't get the message? You guys want to make the same mistake twice?!" But no such bas kol came out when he put on the bigdei kehunah. Why the difference? Why the protest over using klei ha'mikdash but not over using bigdei kehunah?

The answer to this question may hinge on a machlokes Rishonim. Tos (Kiddushin 54a) equates bigdei kehunah with klei shareis and assumes both have kedushas ha'guf. Ramban and Ritva disagree and hold that the bigdei kehunah have only kedushas damim. Nafka minah: do bigdei kehunah lose their kedusha if someone violates the issur meila and uses them for a mundane purpose? According to Tos, the begadim, like klei shareis, retain their kedusha, but Ritva writes:

והנכון דכתנות כהונה אינם קדושת הגוף ככלי שרת שהרי אין משתמשין בהן בגופן ומכשירי עבודה הם ודינם כקדושת דמים שיוצאין לחולין בשוגג

Sefer haMakneh points out that based on Ritva, we can understand the difference between  the klei shareis and bigdei kehunah. The gemara (A"Z 52b) darshens from a pasuk in Yechezkel ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה that when the Beis haMikdash was destroyed, the gold and silver in its storehouses lost their kedusha. According to Baal haMaor, the mechanism behind this de-sanctification is the din of mei'ila. The same din that applied to the money should also apply to bigdei kehunah, which according to Ritva have only kedushas damin. The meila committed at the time of churban caused the garments to lost their kedusha. When Achashveirosh put on the garments of bigdei kehunah, he was putting on clothes that no longer had any sanctity -- they were, for all halachic intents and purposes, ordinary garments.  The klei shareis, however, have kedusas ha'guf, which cannot be spoiled by meila. They retained their sanctity. Therefore, the bas kol cried out when Achashveirosh defiled that which was still holy.

There wrinkle in this approach is that Ramban is difficult l'shitaso. Unlike Baal haMaor who learns that ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה operates through the framework of mei'ila, Ramban learns that it is a chiddush din which applies across the board even to kedushas ha'guf. L'shitaso, the klei shareis themselves should also no longer have had any kedusha. (See also Rashi in A"Z 52 who has a different understanding of ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה ).

The Chida in his commentary on the megillah Chomas Anach makes a similar point as the Sefer HaMakneh to explain another gemara on that same amud:

שאלו תלמידיו את רשב"י מפני מה נתחייבו שונאיהן של ישראל שבאותו הדור כליה אמר להם אמרו אתם אמרו לו מפני שנהנו מסעודתו של אותו רשע אם כן שבשושן יהרגו שבכל העולם כולו אל יהרגו אמרו לו אמור אתה אמר להם מפני שהשתחוו לצלם אמרו לו וכי משוא פנים יש בדבר אמר להם הם לא עשו אלא לפנים אף הקב"ה לא עשה עמהן אלא לפנים

Why does the gemara focus on the enjoyment of the meal alone, asks Chida? If the dishes were being served in klei ha'midash at this party, shouldn't BnY have been guilty of mei'ila? He answers:

ולא מפני ששתו ישראל בכלי הקדש נתחייבו שהרי ירדו מקדושתן כדכתיב ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה משבאו לידם נעשו חולין וז"ש וכלים מכלים שונים כלומר כלים שנשתנו בידם והיו חולין אכן עונש ישראל שנהנו מסעודת הרשע

Clearly Chida assumed like Ramban and not Baal haMaor that the din of ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה can remove kedusha even from klei shareis, even from kedushas ha'guf.

Derech agav, R' Chaim Elazari in his Nesivei Chaim on last week's parsha quotes a diyuk of the Chasam Sofer on this gemara that I would explain via a quote from a 1971 NY Times interview with R' Meir Kahane.  The Times asked for Kahane's reaction to the US Attorney General, who was Jewish, asking for a high bail for a Jewish defendant accused of shooting  at the Soviet Mission. Didn't he have an obligation, as a US official, to act as he did, even if, as a Jew, he might be sympathetic to the cause of the defendant. Kahane responded:

No, Mr. Morse [the Attorney General] has an obligation to the U.S. Government. Let me try and explain this to you with a bit of a story. During World War I, there was a very very famous rabbi. He was asked by Jewish soldiers who had been drafted in to the Russian Army whether they could eat pork since that was the only thing served. He said, “Yes, if this is the only food served, then eat it—to live. You can eat the pork. But don't suck the bones.”

My point was that Mr. Morse can come into the court and ask for his $100,000 bail. You can ask for it—and you can ask for it. You can say, “We ask for $100,000 bail be cause he's a dangerous crimi nal”—and then shut up. The judge hesitated. He wavered. And Morse kept at it and kept at it and kept at it and ham mered at it as if he enjoyed it. He was sucking the bone.

Says the Chasam Sofer: Achashveirosh demanded everyone come to the party. Whether Ploni Reb Yid  should have gone or not gone is not the issue. You can't really find fault with someone who goes because he has a gun  pointed at his head. But even if you go, even if you have to eat tarfus, you don't have to suck the bones. The punishment is not for going; the punishment is for שנהנו מסעודתו של אותו רשע, for the enjoyment.

R' Chaim Elazari relates the story of a talmid of a yeshiva who had gone off the derech and once bumped into his old Rosh Yeshiva. The R"Y asked him if he retained anything at all from his days in yeshiva. The talmid replied that indeed he did. He may not keep kosher, he may not keep Shabbos, he may do other aveiros, but he cannot enjoy those aveiros the way other people do because of the impression his past left on him.

R' Chaim Elazari writes that we might think this is a trivial thing, but what we see from the Chasam Sofer is that indeed it is not. 

GR"A on Mordechai -- "chibas Eretz Yisrael alav"

1) The Rama miPana notes that the name of Haman is mentioned 54 times in the megillah, which corresponds to הגוי אשׂר יעבודו ד״ן אנכי.  Yaakov prayed הציליני נא מי״ד אחי מי״ד עשׂו which also is 54.  The Tiferes Banim says the same regarding שׁומר נפשׁות חסידיו מי״ד רשׁעים יצילם.  I wonder why he doesn't quote the pasuk from לַמְנַצֵּחַ עַל אַיֶּלֶת הַשַּׁחַר, Teh 22, which was said by Esther: הַצִּילָה מֵחֶרֶב נַפְשִׁי מִ"יַּד כֶּלֶב יְחִידָתִי.

2) אִ֣ישׁ יְהוּדִ֔י הָיָ֖ה בְּשׁוּשַׁ֣ן הַבִּירָ֑ה וּשְׁמ֣וֹ מׇרְדֳּכַ֗יא בֶּ֣ן יָאִ֧יר בֶּן⁠־שִׁמְעִ֛י בֶּן⁠־קִ֖ישׁ אִ֥ישׁ יְמִינִֽי׃

אֲשֶׁ֤ר הׇגְלָה֙ מִיר֣וּשָׁלַ֔יִם עִם⁠־הַגֹּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הׇגְלְתָ֔ה עִ֖ם יְכׇנְיָ֣ה מֶֽלֶךְ⁠־יְהוּדָ֑ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֶגְלָ֔ה נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּ֖רא מֶ֥לֶךְ בָּבֶֽל

 

The repetition and redundancy of the shoresh גלה so many times in the pasuk is glaring.  GR"A writes as follows:

 

אמר כאן הגלה ג׳ פעמים: ״אשר הגלה מירושלים״, ״אשר הגלתה״, ״אשר הגלה״ להודיע חיבת ארץ ישראל עליו, שבכל פעם חזר לירושלים והיה נגלה ג׳ פעמים וזהו שאמרו (בגמרא יג, א) שגלה מעצמו כלו׳ מדעתו שחזר לארץ ישראל משום כך נגלה פעם שנית, וכן פעם שלישית ואמר כאן ד׳ פעמים לשון של גלות להורות שכל הד׳ גליות יזכרו את גאולתו, כמו שנאמר (ט, כח) וזכרם לא יסוף.

 

You kicked Mordechai out of Eretz Yisrael again, and again, and yet again, but each time he kept trying to get back.  

Mashal l'mah h'dava domeh -- imagine going on a safari and bringing home some exotic bird to keep as a pet.  You're not happy with just a goldfish, guinea pig, or dog -- you want something more exciting.  Inevitably, the day will come when you leave the cage door open by accident and there goes your pet, flying off into the wild.  Even though you cared for it, fed it, put little toys in its birdcage, all that doesn't matter.  You can't change the teva of the creature.

 

The teva of a Jew is to be in Eretz Yisrael.  It's like a magnet that draws us back.  You can put us in the 5 Towns with more than a dozen kosher restaurants, shuls, yeshivos, etc., but at the end of the day, you've just decorated the cage nicely and provided better birdfood.  A Jew who is true to his teva should want to run off as soon as he can.

 

Maharal in Ohr Chadash adds as follows:

 

כתב זה שלא תאמר שיצא חוץ לארץ ישראל מדעתו, ודבר זה אינו ראוי לצדיק. ועל זה אמר ״אשר הגלה״, ולא יצא חוץ לארץ מדעתו. ושלא יקשה כיון שהיה מרדכי מוכן לגאולה באחרונה, אם כן היה ראוי שלא ילך בגולה הוא בעצמו.

 

You can’t say, "I love it here in galus, but don't worry – when the time comes, I'll be ready to leave."  That’s not מוכן לגאולה.  That's being comfortable where you are until you are forced to leave.  And by forced, I don't necessarily mean in a negative sense.  When mashiach comes we will all be "forced" to change in a positive sense.  מוכן לגאולה means the opposite.  You are ready to leave now.  For whatever reasons, circumstance forces you to stay, not by choice --  ולא יצא חוץ לארץ מדעתו, 

 

Later in the megillah we read  ויהי [כאמרם] (באמרם) אליו יום ויום ולא שמע אליהם ויגידו להמן לראות היעמדו דברי מרדכי כי⁠ הגיד להם אשר⁠ הוא יהודי.

 

The Midrash writes:

 

ולא עוד אלא, שאנו איסגנסירין של הקב״ה, שכל השבטים נולדו בחוצה לארץ, וזקני נולד בארץ ישראל. אמרין* ליה ונימר ליה, מיד ״ויגידו להמן וגו׳⁠ ⁠⁠״. אמר להון המן, אמרינן ליה זקנו הלא הוא השתחוה לזקני, הדה הוא דכתיב (בראשית לג, ו-ז) ״ותגשן השפחות וגו׳ ואחר נגש יוסף ורחל וישתחוו״. היתיב, ועדיין לא נולד בנימין. אמרין ליה הדה הוא דכתיב ״ויגידו להמן

 

Binyanim was the only one of the shevatim born in Eretz Yisrael.  Maharal comments עוד, כי הוא נולד בארץ ישראל, שמזה תראה כי הוא שכן אל השם יתברך, וקשה להוציא אותו משם.   

 

Maharal is alluding to Moshe's bracha to Binyamin of וּבֵ֥ין כְּתֵפָ֖יו שָׁכֵֽן (Devarim 33:12).  Rashi there comments that Beis haMikdash was built in Binyamin's portion.  Maharal is adding that it's the fact that Binyamin was born in Eretz Yisrael that gives him this segulah. 

 

The megillah needs to be read against the backdrop of events in Sefer Ezra.  The 10 sons of Haman according to Chazal were those who claimed the Jews were rebelling and wanted to put a stop to the reconstruction of the Beis haMikdash.  Achashveirosh offered Esther "ad chatzi ha'malchus" but no more, which Chazal take to mean he excluded binyan haMikdash.  The Shem m'Shmuel writes that just as at daybreak, "ayales ha'shachar," the sun has not risen yet but its rays are peeking over the horizon, so too, the nes of Purim really stems from the power of Bayis Sheni that was just over the time horizon in the future.  The great challenge to those who lived then was to not get distracted by the lavish party of Achashveirosh, to remain מוכן לגאולה, as Maharal puts it, and not to forget who they were and where they came from.  The end was just over the horizon, if only they could hold on.

lomdus of the chiyuv/kiyum of ben mukaf chomah reading megillah on 14 Adar erev Shabbos

Since 15 Adar falls on Shabbos this year cities that are mukaf chomah will celebrate Purim on Fri, 14 Adar, along with everyone else.  Yesh lachkor: is the chiyuv of megillah for mukaf chomah moved to 14 Adar, or is their chiyuv really on 15 Adar, but since the megillah cannot be read then because of gezeirah d'Rabbah, they get a makeup day on the 14th?  If the former is true, a ben mukaf chomah can read for a ben ir because they share the same chiyuv.  If the latter is true, perhaps not.

A similar issue is debated by the Rishonim.  Rashi writes that when the bnei kfarim read on earlier dates like 11,12, 13, it is the bnei ha'ir who read for them.  Tos (Yevamos 14) disagrees based on a Yerushalmi that says a ben ir whose chiyuv is on the 14th cannot read for a ben mukaf chomah whose chiyuv is on the 15th.  How then can a ben ir who has to read on the 14th be motzi a ben kfar who reads earlier?  (I thought I posted on this issue before, but can't find it - lots of Purim material on the blog).  The hesber for shitas Rashi (Steipler, Brisker Rav) is that while Chazal allowed the possibility for the kiyum mitzvah on earlier days, the chiyuv for kfarim is the same as that of the ben ir.  It's the same chiyiv of "arei perazos."  However, for someone living in a walled city, however, it's not just the kiyum mitzvah which is on the 15^th – it's the chiyuv which is different.

 

Based on this lomdus, it would seem that while a ben ir and a ben mukaf chomah might this year share a kiyum mitzvah on the 14^th, they are fulfilling different chiyuvim and therefore cannot be motzi each other.    

 

A few other potential nafka minot (many of these were discussed in the Pninei Halacha sheets put out by Yeshivas Mir):

 

1) Some suggest that the reason for the BH"G's shita that women cannot be motzi men in megillah is because men are chayav m'divrei kabbalah but women are only chayavos mi'derabbanan because af hein ha'yahu b'oso ha'nes.  Those chiyuvim are not parallel.  This year, when the bnei mukaf chomah read on the 14th, can a women be motzi a man?  If the chiyuv mi'divrei kabbalah of reading on the 15th is effectively cancelled because of gzeirah d'Rabbah, men are left with a chiyuv derabbanan makeup day of the 14th.  That is parallel to the chiyuv derabbanan which women have.   However, if the chiyuv on the 15th remains in place and just the kiyum is moved to the 14th, the disparity between the chiyuv of men and women remains in place.  

2) According to Rama we say a bracha of she'hechiyanu on the megillah reading of the day (Rambam holds that there is only one she'hechiyanu said at night -- reading during the day is an encore performance of the same mitzvah).  The Aderet explained that  the reason for 2 birchot she'hechiyanu is because the night reading is derabannan; the day reading is divrei kabbalah. See this post where we discussed this chidduush.  Based on this logic, it should come out that this year even the bnei mukaf chomah who read during the day do NOT recite she'hechiyanu.  They chiyuv mi'divrei kabbalah is on the 15th.  When they read on the day of 14th, it is only a kiyum derabbanan, same as at night.

 

3) The gemara gives a number of reasons why we do not say hallel on Purim, among them that reading the megillah counts as hallel.  Meiri holds that if one does not have a megillah, one must says hallel.  If a ben mukaf chomah does not have a megillah this year, presumably he would say hallel on shabbos, they day he would be theoretically mechuyav  to read megillah, even though had he had a megillah he would lmaaseh read it on Friday.

 

4) R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is quoted as saying that if a baal koreh who is a ben mukaf chomah reads megillah on Friday and then r"l dies before Shabbos, the tzibur was not yotzei.  Since the baal korei never reached the point at which the chiyuv mitzvah kicks in, he only was alive at the time of the kiyum mitzvah, he cannot be motzi anyone. 

 

5) There is a fascinating chiddush of the Maharil Diskin regarding a katan who becomes bar mitzvah on this Shabbos.  The Rishonim discuss why certain cases are exceptions to the rule of gezeirah d'Rabbah, e.g. bris milah.  One answer is that the gezeirah only applies to mitzvos like lulav, shofar, megillah, where the mitzvah is incumbant upon everyone to do.  Since everyone is busy trying doing there own mitzvah, someone who makes a mistake and carries is liable to escape notice and end up violating Shabbos.  Where only one person is involved in doing the mitzvah, e.g. bris milah, all the other people not involved might notice an error and prevent the chilul shabbos.  In our case, the katan who hears megillah on Friday cannot be yotzei since he is not yet a bar chiyuva.  Everyone else was already yotzei by reading on Friday.  Therefore, says Maharil Diskin, the katan should read megillah on Shabbos.  For him it is like the mitzvah of milah -- a mitzvah only a yachid and not everyone is involved in, in which case gezeirah d'Rabbah does not apply.  (See Shu"T Sheivet haLevi 5:83) 

(I wrote this a bit b'kitzur, but hopefull the gist is clear.)

the original 180; shlichus on a mitzvah she'bgufo

1) My wife pointed out that the seudah of Achashveirosh was 180 days.  ונהפּוך הוא!  We needed to correct that to earn the holiday of Purim.  This may be the first instance of a 180 turnabout.

2) Likutei Sichos of the L Rebbe vol 21 page 492:

Pretty amazing chiddush -- if you can't fulfill drinking ad d'lo yada yourself, you can have a shliach do it on your behalf and sit back and watch them get drunk.  You don't get a full kiyum, but the Rebbe says it is better than nothing.

How does that work?  Drinking is a מצוה שׁבּגופו, and you can't fulfill a מצוה שׁבּגופו through shlichus?  (The classic example is putting on tefillin -- you can't appoint a shliach to put on tefillin for you; they have to be placed on your own arm.)

My wife's cousin, R' Akiva Wagner a"h, has a hesber that hinges on two points:

a) You can have a partial kiyum ha'mitzvah.  For example, as we've discussed before, even though the shiur for mitzvos achila is a k'zayis, if you don't have the full shiur available there you may still get some credit for doing achila on a chatzi shiur.

b) Yesh lachkor: when we say you cannot fulfill a מצוה שׁבּגופו through shlichus, does that mean the shlichus is invalid, or does it mean the shliach is your shliach, i.e. the shlichus works, but the shlichus cannot result in a kiyum ha'mitzvah.

If you accept the second side of the chakira (which you need to prove), you at least have an opening to say that the shlichus may not be enough for a full kiyum mitzvah, but may be enough to get you a partial kiyum, akin to a chatzi shiur of a mitzvas aseh.  

Esther - Sarah link; the itzumo shel yom of Purim

1) See my wife's blog for a nice take on the relationship between Esther and Sarah.

2) There is a machlokes Rebbi and Chachamim whether עיצומו שׁל יום is mechapeir on Yom Kippurim or whether teshuvah is required as well.  R' Yaakov Moshe Charlap held that the machlokes is only viz a viz Yom Ki-Purim, but on Purim itself, everyone agrees that עיצומו שׁל יום is mechapeir.  

R' Yisrael Salanter is reported to have said that a wise person can accomplish as much in ruchniyus in his seudas Purim as an unintelligent person accomplishes with his tefilas ne'ila. 

Take advantage of the day!

Rabbah and R' Zeira's Purim seudah - an incredible take on an incredible story

The gemara (Meg 7b) follows up on Rava's statement

 אמר רבא מיחייב איניש לבסומי בפוריא עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי

with a story:

רבה ורבי זירא עבדו סעודת פורים בהדי הדדי איבסום קם רבה שחטיה לרבי זירא למחר בעי רחמי ואחייה לשנה אמר ליה ניתי מר ונעביד סעודת פורים בהדי הדדי אמר ליה לא בכל שעתא ושעתא מתרחיש ניסא

The Maharasha writes, דבר תמוה הוא לפרשו כפשטיה, taken at face value, the story is incredible.  Even granting the inebriation of Rava, or Rabbah according to some girsa'ot, could he really have committed murder?  Would an even keeled person (much less a tzadik like an amora!), out of the blue, without any prior animosity towards a person, jump up and kill them, no matter how drunk they might be?  Were that the case bars should be the scenes of a lot more murders.      

Some explain (see Baal HaMaor quoting Rabeinu Ephraim) the whole point of the story is in its shock value, as an illustration of the dangers of drinking עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי.  It could be that the Rambam and others who write that one should drink until one dozes off read the story as a rejection of Rava's extreme formulation. 

Others (e.g. see the Ben Ish Chai, or the Sichos of the L Rebbe) take the story less literally, and explain that Rabbah taught R' Zeira great esoteric secrets of Torah, which R' Zeira's soul could not receive while contained in his physical body, so his soul departed.  The Rebbe notes that the name Rabbah indicates rav=greatness, while Zeira is like the Aramaic word=smallness, indicating the gap between their knowledge.

Chasam Sofer in his teshuvos (OC end of 185) points out that the gemara (Shabbos 156a) tells us that someone born under the planetary influence of mars will have a proclivity to spill blood, הַאי מַאן דִּבְמַאְדִּים — יְהֵי גְּבַר אָשֵׁיד דְּמָא.  Guess who was born when mars was visible?  אָמַר רַבָּה: אֲנָא בְּמַאְדִּים הֲוַאי.  None other than Rabbah!  Therefore, says Chasam Sofer, it is davka Rabbah who ended up committing murder.  This is why the majority of poskim do not reject Rava's statement in the face of the story, as most people do not share that proclivity to blood lust.  

R' Menashe Klein (O.C. Tinyana 556) writes that Rabbah intended to channel his blood lust towards the fulfillment of a mitzvah and wanted to carry out mech'ias Amalek k'peshuto.  How did R' Zeira get involved in that?  He suggests that R' Zeira, as is our custom, came to Rabbah's feast dressed in costume.  Rather than dress up like Mordechai, like all other little boys, R' Zeira decided he would dress up like Haman, or an Amaleiki.  Overcome with drunkenness, in his zeal to fulfill mechi'as Amalek, Rabbah did not recognized his friend, thought it was really Amalek at his party, and took advantage of the opportunity.  

Just when you thought we've reached the limits of creative interpretation here, I found in the last piece of the "yoman" kept by R' Yisrael Be'eri (note for those who learned in Kerem b'Yavneh: this is R' Binyamin Be'eri's father), R' Yaakov Moshe Charlap's son in law, (well worth your reading in its entirety!) a pshat that I am not sure is not Purim torah, but you can decide.  R' Charlap writes that there must have been some friction between Rabbah and R' Zeira before this incident.  The murder was the culmination of the story, not the start of the story.  Who was R' Zeira?  Chazal tell us (Kesubos 110b) that R' Zeira avoided R" Yehuda because R' Yehudah held there was an issur of going from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael.  The gemara (BM 85) tells us that R' Zeira made aliya and then fasted so that he would forget the Babvli and could immerse himself completely in Talmud Yerushalmi, the torah of Eretz Yisrael.  (My son pointed out R' Zeira is highlighted in the last sugya in Horiyos as the exemplar of exceptional ability to be maksheh u'mefareik, so his transformation from a Bavli-Amora to a Yerushalmi thinker must have been a dramatic change.)  Not only was R' Zeira a confirmed Zionist, a lover of Eretz Yisrael, but he was also a great lover of the Jewish people.  The gemara (San 37) writes that he was mekareiv a bunch of outlaws in his neighborhood, against the wishes of the other Rabbis who wanted nothing to do with them.  Who was Rabbah?  The gemara (Shabbos 153) writes that Rabbah was so despised by the inhabitants of Pumbadita because of his criticisms that Abayei wondered if anyone would even come to his funeral אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַבָּה: כְּגוֹן מָר דְּסָנוּ לֵיהּ כּוּלְּהוּ פּוּמְבְּדִיתָאֵי, מַאן מַחֵים הֶסְפֵּידָא.  Rabbah and R' Zeira represent a clash of ideologies, two different approaches to avodas Hashem.  They met at the Purim seudah, things came to a head, and Rabbah, in the heat of the moment, struck R' Zeira.

Fast foward to modern times.  R Charlap quotes his rebbe, Rav Kook, as saying who is R' Zeira other than himself, a great lover of Eretz Yisrael, a great lover of even the most wayward of Am Yisrael.  Zeira is roshei teivos, the same letters as זירא = זה רב אברהם יצחק.  And Rabbah is of course those who stood against Rav Kook and did not follow in his footsteps.  

May we be zocheh this year to fulfill mechi'as Amalek k'peshuto mamesh, in the literal sense, and I make no apologies for choosing sides here, I hope we become a little more like R' Zeira, to come to greater love of Eretz Yisrael and drawing close those who need to be drawn close.  Just as Purim was the prelude to the return and aliya of Ezra and binyan ha'bayis, so too should our Purim be the prelude to our full return to Eretz Yisrael, culminating in binyan ha'bayis as well.

purim katan meshulash - R' Chaim Kanievsky's chiddush

The Mishna in Meg (6b) has a rule:  אין בין אדר הראשון לאדר השני אלא קריאת המגילה ומתנות לאביונים.  Therefore, this year, which is a leap year, we will not be reading megillah this month, nor can one fulfill the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim this month.  

Is there any mitzvah to have a party on 14 Adar this month?  On the one hand, the Mishna only speaks about megillah and matanot l'evyonim, implying that when it comes to partying, there is no difference between the months.  On the other hand, the gemara writes

 ומתני' חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אין בין ארבעה עשר שבאדר הראשון לי"ד שבאדר השני אלא מקרא מגילה ומתנות הא לענין הספד ותענית זה וזה שוין

implying that it's only with respect to not having hesped or taanis that the days in both months are equal.  Tos writes:

יש שנוהגין לעשות ימי משתה ושמחה בארבעה עשר ובחמשה עשר של אדר הראשון וריהטא דמתניתין נמי משמע כן מדקאמר אלא מקרא מגילה (ב) בלבד ומתנות עניים מכלל דלענין משתה ושמחה זה וזה שוין ולא נהירא דהא אמרינן בגמרא הא לענין הספד ותענית זה וזה שוין מכלל דשמחה ומשתה ליכא דע"כ לא תליא הא בהא דאי תליא הא בהא לאשמעינן דמשתה ושמחה נהגו בהו וממילא נאסר בהספד דהא הימים האמורים במגילת תענית האסורים בהספד אין בהן משתה ושמחה וכן הלכה שאין צריך להחמיר לעשות משתה ושמחה באדר הראשון

Worth noting that Tos speaks about the 14th and the 15th, but the gemara spoke only about the 14th, אין בין ארבעה עשר שבאדר הראשון לי"ד שבאדר השני.  The Beis Yosef quotes from SM"K that even if you accept the notion that there is a chiyuv of mishteh in Adar I, it is limited to the day of the 14th alone.

והגהות מיימונית כתבו בשם סמ"ק שהעולם לא נהגו לעשות משתה ושמחה כי אם בי"ד שבאדר הראשון אע"פ שבאדר השני נהגו גם בט"ו שמחה ומשתה  וטעמא משום דאמר תלמודא אין בין י"ד שבאדר הראשון וכו' ולא הזכיר ט"ו ושמא נקט אותו שהוא עיקר

(Perhaps the SM"K held that celebrating 14 vs 15 Adar are not two separate takanos, but are two opportunities for the kiyum mitzvah. See last year's post . Purim katan commemorates the source takanah, not the opportunities for kiyum hamitzvah.)

The SA and Rama (697) write that on Purim Katan, both 14 and 15 Adar I, we skip tachanun, we skip the mizmor of yaancha Hashem b'yom tzarah, and Rama paskens to avoid hesped and taanis. Rama then quotes the view that holds one should have a party of 14 and 15 of Adar I, and writes that even though it is not accepted l'halacha, one should try to have a larger seudah to be yotzei this opinion. 

The Ksav Sofer al haTorah goes a step further with an even bigger chiddush (see also here).  Tos only mentions having a seudah, but nothing about mishloach manos.  Ran writes  אבל לענין לשלוח מנות כיון דדמו למתנות לאביונים דליתנהו אלא בשני משמע נמי שאף משלוח מנות אינו אלא בשני.  K.S. disagrees, and writes that since the point of mishloach manos is to enhance the seudah, if there is a chiyuv seudah in Adar I, there should also be a chiyuv mishloach manos as well.  (See as well K.S. in the shut Y.D. 136 for a different approach).

R' Chaim Kanievsky goes yet a step further with an even bigger chiddush.  This year 15 Adar I falls out on Shabbos.  When 15 Adar II falls on Shabbos, you have Purim meshulash, and according to many shitos, the seudah is pushed until Sunday.  RC"K therefore held that on 16 Adar I, Sunday, no tachanun is recited.  Had it been Adar II, we would be celebrating on 16; therefore, we should celebrate on Adar I as well.

RC"K seems to be taking sides in a fundamental question.  When we have a Purim meshulash and end up celebrating on the 16th, does that mean the 16th is the day on which we celebrate Purim, or is Purim really on the 15th, but since we can't have the seudah then (Yerushalmi says ain m'arvin simcha b'simcha), there is tashlumin on the 16th?  If Purim is really the 15th and the 16th is just a day of tashlumin, it is harder to make the case that we should skip tachanun on that day even in Adar I.  (In fact, it is hard to even make the case to skip tachanun or avoid hesped/taanis on that day in Adar II if you are not in a walled city.  See here  5b)

The Rama ends off "tov lev mishteh tamid."  Purim is our most joyous time of year.  Shabbos is technically a day of oneg, not simcha.  On Y"T there is simcha, but beis din used to send out policemen to make sure things don't get out of hand.  The L. Rebbe notes that even on Purim itself, one has mitzvos ha'yom like mikra megillah that have to be taken seriously.  The only day when one can be immersed almost completely in joy, he says, is Purim katan.  This day is the pinnacle of simcha.  Take advantage!

the principle of the matter

1) Someone just sent me a nice derush about הָעִ֥יר שׁוּשָׁ֖ן נָבֽוֹכָה explaining the confusion of the Jews, but I don't think the pshat in the pasuk is about confusion.  Targum explains that  נָבֽוֹכָה here is דְשׁוּשַׁן מִתְעַרְבְּלָא בְּחֶדְוַת עַמְמִין נוּכְרָאִין וּבְקַל בְּכִיתָא דְעַמָא בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל.   The Jews of the city were in anguish; the non-Jews were rejoicing, hence, the city was in a confused, mixed up state.  It does not mean the Jews themselves were confused about what the decree against them meant.   

There is a very striking Ibn Ezra on that pasuk:

ודרש ויעבור (אסתר ד׳:י״ז) לא אכל מצה דברי יחיד הן. ואם אמרנו שהתענה בט״ו בניסן לא עבר על התורה כי כל ישראל חייבין לאכול מצה ומרורים ליל פסח אם הן בארץ ישראל עם הפסח, וחוצה לארץ אכילתם לזכר. ואכילת המצות ימים שבעה רשות לא חובה רק התורה אסרה החמץ והתירה המצות כדרך ששת ימים תעבוד

When he refers to דרש ויעבור he means the gemara רב אמר, שהעביר יום ראשון של פסח בתענית, that they fasted on Pesach.  Ibn Ezra is not happy with that, so he gets around it by saying that view is a daas yachid, or (this is the striking part) by arguing that we hold that achilas matzah without korban pesach is just a zecher and therefore derabbanan.  The truth is that it is a machlokes (Pes 120), but we pasken that matzah b'zman ha'zeh is d'oraysa.  Apparently Ibn Ezra did not concur.

One other interesting Ibn Ezra: he writes that the reason why Haman's lottery fell out in Adar is because Adar is the furthest month away from Nisan, giving the Jews a full year to wake up and come to their senses.

2) At the beginning of ch 3 of the megillah we read

וְכׇל־עַבְדֵ֨י הַמֶּ֜לֶךְ אֲשֶׁר־בְּשַׁ֣עַר הַמֶּ֗לֶךְ כֹּרְעִ֤ים וּמִֽשְׁתַּחֲוִים֙ לְהָמָ֔ן כִּי־כֵ֖ן צִוָּה־ל֣וֹ הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ וּמׇ֨רְדֳּכַ֔י לֹ֥א יִכְרַ֖ע וְלֹ֥א יִֽשְׁתַּחֲוֶֽה

Why the future tense of וּמׇ֨רְדֳּכַ֔י לֹ֥א יִכְרַ֖ע וְלֹ֥א יִֽשְׁתַּחֲוֶֽה?  

The megillah continues and relates that the other officers, seeing Mordechai's refusal to bow, stirred the pot:

וַיְהִ֗י [כְּאׇמְרָ֤ם] (באמרם) אֵלָיו֙ י֣וֹם וָי֔וֹם וְלֹ֥א שָׁמַ֖ע אֲלֵיהֶ֑ם וַיַּגִּ֣ידוּ לְהָמָ֗ן לִרְאוֹת֙ הֲיַֽעַמְדוּ֙ דִּבְרֵ֣י מׇרְדֳּכַ֔י כִּֽי־הִגִּ֥יד לָהֶ֖ם אֲשֶׁר־ה֥וּא יְהוּדִֽי׃

What does it mean that י כִּֽי־הִגִּ֥יד לָהֶ֖ם אֲשֶׁר־ה֥וּא יְהוּדִֽי?  Mordechai and Haman knew each other from the court.  According to Chazal, they both served drink at Achashveirosh's lavish party.  Surely Haman knew that Mordechai was a Jew and this did not come as a surprise?

In order to understand what's going on we need to look at these pesukim in context of what occurred immediately beforehand.  At the end of the previous chapter, the megillah tells us that Mordechai foiled the assassination plot of Bigsan va'Seresh.  Mordechai was not some unknown character.  וּמׇרְדֳּכַ֖י יוֹשֵׁ֣ב בְּשַֽׁעַר־הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ, he was part of the inner circle, one of those privileged  to have a position close to the king.  The fact that he saved the king's life only served to further cement his high position in the court.

Therefore, when Haman made a decree for people to bow before him, Mordechai was not included.   כׇל־עַבְדֵ֨י הַמֶּ֜לֶךְ אֲשֶׁר־בְּשַׁ֣עַר הַמֶּ֗לֶךְ have to bow, but Mordechai was not just an "eved" of Achashveirosh, he was a member of the inner circle.  There are rules and there are rules.  The laws that applied to the regular עַבְדֵ֨י הַמֶּ֜לֶךְ did not apply to him (see Malbi"m).  He had a trump card, an out.

 לֹ֥א יִכְרַ֖ע וְלֹ֥א יִֽשְׁתַּחֲוֶֽה is in future tense because Mordechai was not satisfied with just being exempt from the law in the present, due to his position and situation.  Mordechai wanted everyone to know the law itself was unjust, and therefore declared that were he in the future lose his special privilege and be forced to obey, he still would never do so.  It was the principle of the matter.

Mordechai's identity as a Jew was nown to Haman, but it was not relevant, at least in Haman's eyes, to his order.  Mordechai was not subject to the law, so there was nothing to talk about.  It was Mordechai who chose to make it relevant.  It was Mordechai who declared that his not bowing was not a matter of immunity based on his status, but rather was because he was a Jew and a Jew cannot do such a thing. כִּֽי־הִגִּ֥יד לָהֶ֖ם אֲשֶׁר־ה֥וּא יְהוּדִֽי׃ and that is the reason for Mordechai's behavior.  

This approach explains the strange give and take between Esther and Mordechai later in chapter 4.  When Esther is told that Mordechai is sitting outside the palace in sackcloth and ashes, she sends a message to him, וַתֹּ֤אמֶר אֶסְתֵּר֙ לַהֲתָ֔ךְ וַתְּצַוֵּ֖הוּ אֶֽל־מׇרְדֳּכָֽי (4:10).  The Targum fills in what the text is missing and tells us that she commanded Mordechai וַאֲמַרַת אֶסְתֵּר לַהֲתָךְ לְמֵיזַל וּלְמַלָלָא לְמָרְדְכַי וּפַקֵידַת לֵיהּ עַל עֵיסַק מָרְדְכַי דְלָא יְגָרֵי עִם הָמָן מַצוּתָא אֲרוּם דְבָבוּ דְבֵינֵי יַעֲקֹב וְעֵשָׂו הֲוָה נְטַר לֵיהּ, not to pick a fight with Haman.  Did Esther really expect Mordechai to just roll over and start bowing to Haman, which may have involved issues of avodah zarah?  

The Kedushas Levi explains that bowing or not bowing before Haman was never the issue here.  Mordechai was free to do as he pleased; the law calling on the king's servants to bow before Haman did not apply to him.  So Esther begged him: Why make an issue of it then?  Why pick a fight?  Why arouse the animosity of Eisav and paint a target on the backs of the Jewish people?

That approach did not satisfy Mordechai.  Sometimes you have to make an issue of things, not just because the loophole you have today may be closed tomorrow, but simply because the principle of the matter demands it.

inyanei halacha/lomdus for Purim

 1) Women are not obligated in the mitzvah of giving machtzis ha'shekel (see post here).  Therefore, b'pashtus it would seem that MG"A is correct in arguing that women have no obligation to give a zecher to the machatzis ha'shekel.  However, it seems that most contemporary poskim (see Chazon Ovadya on Hil Purim, R' Elyashiv and R' Shlomo Zalman and others quoted in the Dirshu M"B) hold otherwise.  I don't know when or why things shifted away from the MG"A's view (maybe because women are included in the protection of machatzis ha'shekel, as my wife explained, or maybe because as GR"A notes, giving on a taanis is a kiyum of tzedaka, not just a zecher to the shekalim), but kach hava.  

2) The Ran writes that if there is a safeik whether a city is mukaf or not, they should read megillah on the 14th based on rov.  The Shaar haMelech raises the question of why we don't say kol kavu'a k'mechtza al mechtza given that a city is stationary.  

The classic case of kol kavu'a (see end of first perek in Kesubos) is where you have 9 butcher shops selling kosher meat and one selling treif meat and you can't remember which store you bought your meat in.  Even though the odds are greatly in favor of the meat being kosher, there is a gezeiras ha'kasuv not to follow rov in this case since the stores are stationary.  If you found the piece of meat in the street, since the meat must have changed location from inside the store to outside, we say kol d'parish m'ruba parish.  

Some Achronim argue that the case of a city is different.  In the case of the meat, there are multiple butcher shops in the city you could have bought the eat from (kavu'a) or which the meat could have come from (parish).  There is a taaroves of items before us.  In the case of an isolated city, it is just one item standing on its own.  True, it is a stationary item, but that alone does not make it kavu'a.

There is an issur of planting in a nachal eisan where an eglah arufa was offered.  Since we don't know exactly where an eglah arufah might have been offered, why not prohibit planting every nachal eisan because kol kavu'a k'mechtza al mechtza?  Same type of question.  See Ohr Sameiach (ch 6 og Hil Avodah Zarah) 

3) The Megillah tells us (9:27) וְלֹ֣א יַעֲב֔וֹר לִהְי֣וֹת עֹשִׂ֗ים אֵ֣ת שְׁנֵ֤י הַיָּמִים֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה כִּכְתָבָ֖ם וְכִזְמַנָּ֑ם.  The Rambam in Hil Mamrim (2:2) writes that if Beis Din makes a takanah, a later B"D which has more authority (greater in chochma and minyan) can overturn that gezeira.  Malbi"m explains our pasuk to mean that built into the takanah of Purim was the condition that it be an eternal celebration, not subject to review by any future B"D.

Lulei d'mistafina I would ask how the Malbi"m learned pshat in the first daf in Megillah where the gemara wants to know the source for reading on the additional days of 11, 12, 13 and not just 14 and 15.  Asks the gemara, דאי ס"ד אנשי כנה"ג י"ד וט"ו תקון אתו רבנן ועקרי תקנתא דתקינו אנשי כנה"ג והתנן אין ב"ד יכול לבטל דברי ב"ד חבירו אא"כ גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין ?  The implication is that lulei there was a future B"D that was indeed  גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין there would be no problem in changing the original takanah -- the takanah of Purim is no different than any other takanot Chazal.

Perhaps the condition was only not to eliminate the celebration on 14 and 15, but in other respects the takanah could be modified by a later, great B"D. 

4) Yesh lachkor whether there is one takanah to celebrate Purim, and whether you have to do so on the 14th or the 15th is just a detail in the kiyum mitzvah, or whether there were two separate takanaot -- a takanah to celebrate 14 Adar for those in unwalled cities; a second, separate takanah to celebrate 15 Adar in walled cities and Shushan.  

The Yerushalmi (2:3), on the one hand, writes that someone who is chayav to read on the 15th is yotzei b'dieved if he read on the 14th. Mashma that there is only one takanah, to celebrate Purim, and the rest is details.  Were reading on the 15th a separate takanah, it obviously can only be fulfilled on that day.   

On the other hand, the Yerushalmi also writes that if someone heard megillah on the 14th in a regular city but then travels to a walled city on the 15th, they have to hear megillah again.  If there is just one takanah to celebrate Purim and read megillah, why should the person have to celebrate 2x?  They already fulfilled the chiyuv on the 14th?  This Yerushalmi seems to suggest that celebrating on the 15th is an independent takanah, and therefore has nothing to do with what was done the day before.

How to get these two Yerushalmis to fit and whether or not the Bavli agrees with these dinim is a discussion in Achronim that you need a clearer head than I have on a fast day to digest : )

This chakira may explains the machlokes Rashi and Rosh with respect to someone who travels between cities.  According to Rashi, if you intend to be in an unwalled city on the morning of the 14th, you must read megillah on the 14th; if you intend to be in a walled city on the morning of the 15th, you must read with them on the 15th.  In theory, according to Rashi if one travels from an unwalled city on the 14th and spends the 15th in a walled city, one would have to read on both days.  Rosh disagrees and writes that the determining factor of when you have to read is what your location is on the morning of the 14th.  If you are in an unwalled city, you read then; if you are in a walled city, you read the next day on the 15th.  

According to Rashi, it would seem there are two separate takanot in play, and therefore one theoretically might have to read on the 14th and the 15th to fulfill each din.  According to the Rosh, there is one takanah to celebrate Purim, and it's just a matter of figuring out which day to do it on, either 14 or 15, but not both.

5) Baruch she'kivanti, I found the Raavyah here supports my suggestion that the Yerushalmi that speaks about bringing children to hear megillah is not a din in chinuch, but applies even to younger children because af hein ha'yu b'oso na'nes of being saved from destruction by Haman.  The GRA disagrees.  

It's not clear to me what the cutoff point or difference is between the age of "yode'i l'havin" (to quote Raavyah) where listening to megillah is meaningful as pirseumei nisa because of af hein as opposed to the age of understanding when the regular din of chinuch kicks in.

im matzasi chein

Chapter 7 of Megillas Esther is the climax of the story, where Esther reveals to Achashveirosh what Haman is plotting.  Chapter 8 starts with Esther sharing her relationship to Mordechai with Achashveirosh, and Achashveirosh turning over Haman's estate and possessions to them.  The Megillah then continues and tells us that Esther made another request of the King (8:5):

וַ֠תֹּ֠אמֶר אִם־עַל־הַמֶּ֨לֶךְ ט֜וֹב וְאִם־מָצָ֧אתִי חֵ֣ן לְפָנָ֗יו וְכָשֵׁ֤ר הַדָּבָר֙ לִפְנֵ֣י הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וְטוֹבָ֥ה אֲנִ֖י בְּעֵינָ֑יו יִכָּתֵ֞ב לְהָשִׁ֣יב אֶת־הַסְּפָרִ֗ים מַחֲשֶׁ֜בֶת הָמָ֤ן בֶּֽן־הַמְּדָ֙תָא֙ הָאֲגָגִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֣ר כָּתַ֗ב לְאַבֵּד֙ אֶת־הַיְּהוּדִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּכׇל־מְדִינ֥וֹת הַמֶּֽלֶךְ

It's now out in the open (as opposed to earlier, where Achashveirosh could claim plausible deniability) that Haman was plotting genocide against the Jews, his beloved Queen's people.  It's out in the open that Mordechai, the leader of the Jews, had saved Achashveirosh from assassination, proving his fidelity and service to the King.  At this point, you would think that Esther has a right to say to Achashveirosh, "Come on -- you owe us one."  But even were that not the case, even were there no relationship between Achashveirosh and Esther, or no relationship between Esther and Mordechai, how could Achashveirosh possibly let those letters of Haman stand?  We're talking about a call for an unprovoked attack against and innocent people.  Even the cruelest dictator tries to invent some pretext to justify his cruelty, if only to avoid the cognitive dissonance of thinking oneself a civilized person while committing atrocities. 

Esther shouldn't even have had to ask, but look at the language she uses:

 וְאִם־מָצָ֧אתִי חֵ֣ן לְפָנָ֗יו ... וְטוֹבָ֥ה אֲנִ֖י בְּעֵינָ֑יו 

The words ־מָצָ֧אתִי חֵ֣ן imply that this is a special favor, something Achashveirosh maybe will do out of love for Esther, out of special consideration for her. 

Not only does she have to ask, she has to beg.

Esther understood something that seems to still not have sunk into the heads of many people.

I saw an interview quoting someone in the Ukraine who said, "People did not believe in their wildest dreams that such a thing would happen.  That in 2022, we are going to talk about a full invasion and an all-out bombardment of citizens.  This is literally coming out of 1941..."

You know what they said in 1941?  They said, "People did not believe in their wildest dreams that such a thing would happen. This is literally out of 1916."

The shock and surprise come because we delude ourselves into thinking that now, this year, this time around, things have changed, that we live in a liberal, humane society with morals and norms that protect the innocent from harm, that promote fairness and justice, that ensure good triumphs and evil is defeated.  

Esther was under no such delusions.   וְאִם־מָצָ֧אתִי חֵ֣ן.  That's the only currency that really matters in the end.  Appealing to Achashveirosh's spirit of tolerance, his ethics, his humanity, are not enough.  It sadly just boils down to whim and caprice, to finding favor today, and who knows what tomorrow may bring.  

I was recently reading Dara Horn's book People Love Dead Jews and one fact she throws out caught my eye: there are thousands of chasidei umot ha'olam recognized by Yad vaShem, which seems like a large number, but it actually is not even a drop in the bucket compared with the millions who sat on the sidelines and did nothing, or even worse, assisted.  Liberal values, tolerance, shared humanity -- kumbaya -- it was all meaningless in the end. וְאִם־מָצָ֧אתִי חֵ֣ן, and if not, there is sadly nothing to talk about.

This is a sobering, sad, pessimistic view of human nature (I think I saw this pshat in Ohr Yahel from R' Leib Chasman, but I couldn't find it there when I looked again) that is not the sort of thing you want to think about on Purim.  No one ever really wants to think about it, and so we blind ourselves to the precariousness of our situation.

Let me give you something a little more optimistic to munch on.  Why did Esther call that first party for Haman and Achashveirosh?  Nothing really happened other than her inviting them back for a second party?

R' Tzadok haKohen writes in Pri Tzadik (2):

 ונראה שלא ידעה אסתר באיזו אופן יהיה הנס ואולי תפעול על ידי הסעודה שהמן ישלים אתה וידבר טוב על ישראל והיינו שסברה שישוב המן בתשובה. ועל פי זה נבין מ"ש במדרש (משלי ט׳:ב׳) טבחה טבחה מסכה יינה זו אסתר המלכה כו' התקינה סעודה לאחשורוש ולהמן הרשע כו' וראש הפרשה חכמות בנתה ביתה וגו' ומשמע דמדבר מחכמת התורה וכן נדרש במדרש (שם) זו התורה שבנתה כל העולמות ע"ש. רק המכוון שרצתה לעורר בו בהמן השורש קדושה שהיה בו בהעלם ניצוצות קדושות דנשמת ר"ש בר שילת וזהו מסכה יינה יינא דאורייתא דבעל פה עד"ש (זח"ג רעא ב) וסברה שאולי על ידי זה ישוב בתשובה וידבר טוב על ישראל. וזה שנאמר ויצא המן ביום ההוא שמח וטוב לב ובכ"מ מורה טוב לב שנתיישר הלב לטוב להיות לב א' לאביו שבשמים והיאך יתכן לכתוב כן על המן הרשע. ובמ"ר ע"ף כטוב לב המלך בין איתא או"ה אין להם טובה כו' בטוב לב אין כ' כאן אלא כטוב לב המלך טובה ואינה טובה ואיך אה"כ על המן שמח וטוב לב. אך לפי האמור יש לומר דאז לפי שעה יצא ממשתה אסתר שמח וטוב לב כרגע שעוררה בו אסתר הניצוצות קדושות מנשמת ר"ש בר שילת שהוא מקדושת תורה שבעל פה.

The descendants of Haman learned Torah in Bnei Brak.  There was some spark of goodness, of Torah, buried deep within even Haman.  Esther thought she could bring it out and be mekareiv him.  That's why she asked him to dine with her.

Most of us can't even imagine ourselves standing on a street corner like a chabad chassid and asking someone, a Jew, to put on tefillin.  Can you imagine what it must be to even have a hava amina that you could be mekareiv Haman?

And Esther succeeded!  For a moment at least, Haman was 'sameich v'tov lev,' he turned a corner.  The only problem is that he bumped into Mordechai and immediately reverted back to old form.

The Ben Ish Chai points out (see Alshich, Malbim, others) that in the pasuk we started with there are four distinct phrases packed into Esther's request:

1. אִם־עַל־הַמֶּ֨לֶךְ ט֜וֹב

2. אִם־מָצָ֧אתִי חֵ֣ן לְפָנָ֗יו

3. כָשֵׁ֤ר הַדָּבָר֙ לִפְנֵ֣י הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ

4. וְטוֹבָ֥ה אֲנִ֖י בְּעֵינָ֑יו

Why four?  These, he says, correspond to the four levels of limud haTorah, of pshat, remez, derush, v'sod.

It's the koach haTorah that can turn around a Haman.  It's the koach haTorah that somehow -- and I cannot explain how -- can turn the heart of Achashveirosh into one that finds the  חֵ֣ן in Esther and does the right thing.  Purim is not about how the citizens of Shushan suddenly discovered the liberal values they shared with us and therefore spared our lives and got rid of Haman.  It's about kiymu k'kiblu, about kabbalas haTorah 2.0, because those are the only values that ensure our survival.

kesiva k'dibbur

R' Akiva Eiger (Shut 30) raises the question whether writing counts l'halacha as dibur or not, e.g. if one wrote "ha'yom yom echad ba'omer" instead of saying the words, is one yotzei?   (The question may go back to a machlokes Tanaim in Mechilta -- see this post).  

R' Akiva Eiger brings proof from the following sugya: 

The Mishna in Megillah (17) has a din:  הָיָה כּוֹתְבָהּ, דּוֹרְשָׁהּ וּמַגִּיהָהּ, אִם כִּוֵּון לִבּוֹ — יָצָא, וְאִם לָאו — לֹא יָצָא

The gemara (18b) asks what the case in the Mishna is.  If the baal koreh says pasuk by pasuk aloud and then writes it, even if he has kavanah he should not be yotzei, as when he says the pasuk he is not reading from a text.  And even if he writes the pasuk first and then reads it, he still should not be yotzei, as the halacha requires reading megillah from a *completed* text.  Answers the gemara:

אֶלָּא: דְּמַנְּחָה מְגִילָּה קַמֵּיהּ וְקָרֵי (לַהּ) מִינַּהּ פְּסוּקָא פְּסוּקָא וְכָתַב לָהּ. 

The case is that the baal koreh had a complete megillah in front of him, and he read the pasuk from that megillah, and then wrote it into the text he was working on.

Why does the gemara needs to add that the baal koreh read the pasuk and then wrote it to be yotzei?  The first case in the Mishna is simply הָיָה כּוֹתְבָהּ -- someone was writing a text.  Maybe the case is that the sofer was copying from a completed megillah and is yotzei by writing?

QED, says R' Akiva Eiger, that in order to be yotzei kri'as ha'megillah you need to READ the text, not just WRITE the text.  Kesiva is not the same as dibur.

Or maybe you can argue.  R' Simcha Elberg points out that there are 2 dinim in kri'as ha'megillah: 1) a din kri'ah; 2) a kiyum of pirsumei nisa.  (See this post where I used this same idea to explain shitas haTos that you say she'hechiyanu on the kri'ah by day and by night).  The gemara (18a) writes that we don't know what some of the words mean, but we are yotzei anyway because the reading of megillah accomplishes pirsumei nisa.  

If so, it could be that kesiva is the same as dibur, but the chiyuv of megilah requires not only dibur, but specifically a dibur that accomplishes pirsum -- that is noticable, that people are aware of.  The scratching of the pen as the sofer writes fails to accomplish that.

shabbos zachor - planting the seeds of subversion

1) Why read parshas zachor on shabbos?  Why not some other day, e.g. Purim morning?  

The gemara (Shabbos 118) tells us אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אִלְמָלֵי שָׁמְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שַׁבָּת רִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא שָׁלְטָה בָּהֶן אוּמָּה וְלָשׁוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי יָצְאוּ מִן הָעָם לִלְקוֹט״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וַיָּבֹא עֲמָלֵק״  Had Klal Yisrael properly observed even one shabbos, we would have been immune from attacks by the nations of the world.  However, since even that first Shabbos in the midbar was broken by people going out to collect mon, Amalek was able to attack.

The Midrash links "zachor" of Shabbos with "zachor" of Amalek.  It is specifically on Shabbos that we speak about waging war with Amalek because if we get Shabbos right, then Amalek has no power. Amalek attacked those who were outside the protection of the ananei ha'kavod.  On Shabbos we ask, "u'fros aleinu sukas shelomecha," that Hashem should envelop all of us in a canopy of shalom, that no one should be left out.

2) I have an idea that is only half baked so far, but I'll mention it anyway even though I just have the scaffolding and not the completed building. Immediately preceding the battle with Amalek, the Torah describes Bnei Yisrael's rebellion in Refidim.  Chazal darshen that "rafu y'deihem min haTorah."  Bnei Yisrael left Mitzrayim and are praised for going out to a desert with nothing, "lechtech acharai ba'midbar b'eretz lo zeru'a..."  (Yirmiyahu 2:2) Sefas Emes explains (unless you justify it as being a poetic keifel ha'inyan b'milim shonot, a midbar is an eretz lo zeru'a, so the pasuk is repetitive) that an eretz lo zeru'a means that Bnei Yisrael left Egypt and stepped into a life still barren of Torah and mitzvos; there was nothing that could spiritually grow and develop yet because mattan Torah had not yet happened.  Sometimes you can have a rebellion or a movement that is inspired by and fueled by ideas.  There are all kinds of -isms that drive people even if achieving their dream or goal involves tremendous hardship and difficulty.  That's not what happened in yetzi'as Mitzrayim.  We embarked into eretz lo zeru'a, the spiritual goal was unknown, the ideology we were signing up for was not clear yet.  There was nothing that could push us forward except for our belief that we were following Hashem somewhere -- even without knowing ideologically where that somewhere was.  That's what Amalek capitalized on.  "Asher karcha BA'DERECH...  Zachor es asher asah lecha Amalek BA'DERECH."  We were on the road to somewhere, but to where exactly?  It's a hard state to be in, a vulnerable state -- just as any teenager (or these days, even those in their 20's). 

After Haman is forced to lead Mordechai around Shushan and tell everyone how great Mordechai is for saving the King, Haman returns home upset and tells his family what happened.  The Megillah then tells us (end ch 6) how his family reacted:  וַיְסַפֵּ֨ר הָמָ֜ן לְזֶ֤רֶשׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ֙ וּלְכׇל־אֹ֣הֲבָ֔יו אֵ֖ת כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר קָרָ֑הוּ וַיֹּ֩אמְרוּ֩ ל֨וֹ חֲכָמָ֜יו וְזֶ֣רֶשׁ אִשְׁתּ֗וֹ אִ֣ם מִזֶּ֣רַע הַיְּהוּדִ֡ים מׇרְדֳּכַ֞י אֲשֶׁר֩ הַחִלּ֨וֹתָ לִנְפֹּ֤ל לְפָנָיו֙ לֹא־תוּכַ֣ל ל֔וֹ כִּֽי־נָפ֥וֹל תִּפּ֖וֹל לְפָנָֽיו׃.  Very strange!  Tiferes Shlomo asks: the whole story we've been reading in the Megillah is about how Haman wanted to destroy the Jews because Mordechai, a Jew, would not bow down to him.  What do you mean, אִ֣ם מִזֶּ֣רַע הַיְּהוּדִ֡ים מׇרְדֳּכַ֞י , If Mordechai is "mi'zera ha'yehudim?"  What's the safeik?!

It's not the Tiferes Shlomo's answer, but based on Sefas Emes I think what Haman's family was telling him was that if Mordechai is just an ordinary Jew, then don't worry about it.  He will go back to his Shabbos cholent and you go back to your plans.  But if Mordechai is "mi'ZERA ha'yehudim," if he is a planter, if he lives to put down seeds that inspire others, if he is the antithesis of "eretz LO ZERU'A," then you have trouble and forget about winning.  When we grow and are inspired, when we live to inspire others, Amalek has no power over us.

L'havdil, it reminds me of the trial of Socrates, tried and executed for the subversive act of teaching others and prodding them to think.  You know, the type person who someone with a blue check mark next to their name reports to the proper authorities because they dare to publicly question and thereby cause others to question whatever the current orthodoxy is. The authorities of Athens saw this as rebellion.  The gemara describes Haman approaching Mordechai to tell him that by order of the king he must lead him around and proclaim how great Mordechai is, and what is Mordechai doing?  He is teaching students the halachos of the korban ha'omer (Meg 15). There was a book written a long time ago by two Queens college professors called "Teaching as a Subversive Activity."  By teaching Torah, Mordechai too was "mi'ZERA haYehudim," planting the seeds of rebellion, or subversion -- not political rebellion, but ideological rebellion, a rejection of the hedonistic norms of Shushan society.

R' Akiva was surely one of the greatest teachers of Torah sheba'al peh, a highly subversive activity in the time of Bayis Sheni when the Romans outlawed our religion.  "Ohr ZARU'A la'tzadik u'lyishrei lev simcha," the last letters of the words spell out the name Akiva. 

Perhaps this is being alluded to in the Megillah, when it tells us that Mordechai and Esther establish the holiday of Purim קִיְּמ֣וּ [וְקִבְּל֣וּ] הַיְּהוּדִים֩ ׀ עֲלֵיהֶ֨ם ׀ וְעַל־זַרְעָ֜ם.  "Aleihem v'al ZARAM."  It's all about continuing to plant those seeds that keep Am Yisrael flourishing.  

And Maybe this is also the reason Rama O.C. 695 writes  יש אומרים שיש לאכול מאכל זרעונים , as "zironim" shares the same root as "ZERA."

So to come back to  לֶכְתֵּ֤ךְ אַֽחֲרַי֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר בְּאֶ֖רֶץ לֹ֥א זְרוּעָֽה, the words everyone knows because it's a beautiful song, the next pasuk continues קֹ֤דֶשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לה׳  רֵאשִׁ֖ית תְּבוּאָתֹ֑ה, that we are the true 'reishit," the first fruits of those seeds that got planted, not the pretender 'reishit goyim Amalek," and therefore, כׇּל־אֹכְלָ֣יו יֶאְשָׁ֔מוּ רָעָ֛ה תָּבֹ֥א אֲלֵיהֶ֖ם נְאֻם ה׳, we ultimately will overcome and defeat them.

4 parshiyos

R' Akiva Eiger (O.C. 685) writes that if the tzibur forgot that it was parshas shekalim and didn't read the parsha, they should take out a sefer once they remember and call up one person and read the parsha.  Others disagree, as we never find a case of a stand alone kri'as haTorah where one person gets called up for an aliya.

Yesh lachkor: Is the takanah of parshas shekalim just a din in kri'as haTorah, defining the subject matter to read that Shabbos, or is it an independent takanah?  

The Emek Bracha raises the same issue with respect to parsha zachor.  He proves that reading the parsha is not a mitzvah in its own right of zechiras Amalek, but rather is just the subject matter Chazal chose for the krias haTorah that day. The Rambam does not mention the kriah in Hil Melachim (5:5) where he discusses the mitzvah of mechi'as and zechiras Amalek, but rather in Hil Tefilah (13:20), where he discusses what parshiyos to we read on the Yamim Tovim.  

Nafka minah: whether one must have kavanah for the mitzvah of zechiras Amalek when reading the parsha, or is it just a regular kriah like any other?

This seems to be the debate between R' Akiva Eiger and the Birkei Yosef, who disagrees.  R' Akiva Eiger understood that reading shekalim is an independent takanah, so if you missed reading it as maftir, just take out a sefer and have someone read it whenever they can.  The other side of the argument held that parshas shekalim is just the subject matter of kri'as haTorah, not a new din, and therefore can only be done in context of the normal rules of kri'ah.  

Adar paradox

The gemara (Archin 31b) has the following din:

וא"ר אבא בר ממל נולדו לו שני טלאים אחד בחמשה עשר של אדר הראשון ואחד באחד באדר השני זה שנולד ה] באדר השני כיון שהגיע יום אחד באדר (השני) של שנה הבאה עלתה לו שנה זה שנולד לו בחמשה עשר באדר הראשון לא עלתה לו שנה עד חמשה עשר באדר של שנה הבאה

A farmer has 2 lambs that are bechorim, one born 15 Adar I, one born on 1 Adar II.  The halacha is each must be offered as a korban within their first year.  If the next year is a non-leap year, the second lamb that was born on 1 Adar II will reach its one year deadline on 1 Adar.  The lamb born first on 15 Adar 1 will reach its deadline second, on 15 Adar.

Applying the same logic to bar mitzvah boys, in a non-leap year a boy born on 15 Adar I will become bar mitzvah two weeks after a baby born on 1 Adar II, even though he was born first.  

The Shvus Yaakov (#9) raises the following paradoxical question: there are halachos that apply to the elder or eldest child in a family, e.g. there is a din that the eldest child takes precedence to do the mitzvah of yibum, there is a din of kavod that applies to older brothers.  

When it comes to these two brothers, who is the eldest?   (You can have brothers born 2 weeks apart from different mothers, assuming you like in a place where cheirem d'Rabeinu Gershom never took hold.)  Is it the brother than was born first, or is it the brother that becomes bar mitzvah first?  Is it possible to have a bar mitzvah, blow out all 13 candles in one's birthday cake, and still be considered the halachic younger brother of someone whose bar mitzvah is only 2 weeks later?

purim katan - tov lev mishteh tamid

Ksav Sofer in his commentary on the Torah has a chiddush that if someone is machmir to have a seudah and celebrate on Purim katan, it should not just be a selfish celebration.  You should also send food to others and be mekayein mishloach manos.  This is what the Rama means when, as a smach to the minhag, he quotes in the last din in SA the pasuk, "Tov lev mishteh tamid."  if you want "mishteh tamid," to have your party both in Adar II and in Adar I, then it should be preceded by your being tov lev, good hearted and generous and sharing with others.

personal purim

There is a din that if one experiences a personal miracle of some sort, one should make a day of celebration, a personal Purim, and commemorate it every year.  If the miracle occurred in a regular year in Adar, which Adar should it be celebrated in during a leap year?  There seems to be a blatant stira in Mishne Beurah.

The MB 686:8 writes:

ומי שנעשה לו נס באדר ונדר לעשות פורים כשיבוא שנת העיבור צריך לעשות הפורים באדר שני:

Yet the MB writes in 697:2 writes:

מי שאירע לו נס באדר וקבל ע"ע לעשות תמיד יום משתה ושמחה אם אירע בשנה פשוטה עושה בראשון 

a miraculous turn of events

 הוא אחשורוש – ר׳ יהודה ור׳ נחמיה, חד אמר, אחשורוש – שהרג את אשתו מפני אוהבו, הוא אחשורש – שהרג את אוהבו מפני אשתו,

The statement that Achashveirosh killed his wife [Vashti] because of his friend [Haman] and killed his fried [Haman] because of his wife [Esther] may be a pithy way to capture the irony of the situation, but what does it tell us outside the facts of the story which we already know?  What new insight are Chazal trying to convey?

The entire first two chapters of the megillah seem extraneous to the story.  The main idea is that the bad guy Haman was brought down by Mordechai and Queen Esther, the palace insider closest to the king, who revealed herself to be Jewish.  Who cares what happened to Vashti beforehand, or how/why Esther became queen?  

Alshich and others write that if you read the story in the way I just summarized it, you miss the point.  This is not some story of political intrigue and infighting, where Haman thought he had the King's ear but was upstaged by Esther.  This is not a story of behind the scenes work by "askanim" who brought their political power and pressure to bear to push out an enemy of the Jews.  Yes, of course we can dress that up and say it was not politics alone but yad Hashem behind the actions of all the players, but even so, that's still not the real story here.  Were that indeed the story, then it would have a tragic ending, because there is no way that Mordechai and Esther would not have had the upper hand.  How do I know ?  Because we read in the first two chapters of the megillah that Achashveirosh was so close to his advisor Haman that he was even willing to kill his wife Vashti at Haman's behest!  You can just imagine Haman, after being accused of treachery, falling to his feet and crying to Achashveirosh's, "No, my good lord, banish Peto, banish Bardolph, banish Poins, but for sweet Jack Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff, valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant being, as he is old Jack Falstaff, banish not him thy Harry’s company, banish not him thy Harry’s company. Banish plump Jack, and banish all the world."  Henry IV Act 2 scene 4 -- just substitute Haman for Jack and Achashveirosh for Harry and the lines are perfect.  Do you think Achashveirosh would take the side of Esther and not only send Haman away, but kill him and thereby "banish all the world?"  Do you think he would do this after already having the sunk cost of having promoted Haman to the highest rank, having killed Vashti because of his advice, having turned over his ring to Haman and given him carte blance to do as he wished?  

The fact that Achashveirosh "killed his wife because of his friend" proves that if Achashveirosh is then willing to turn around and kill that same friend, this time because of his wife, it is a miracle -- not a yad-Hashem-acting-through-the-natural-course-of-events "miracle" in quotation makes,  but a miracle  MIRACLE of the type where something completely unexpected and inexplicable happens.  The first chapters lay the groundwork for just the opposite of what actually happened to happen, if not for Hashem's direct intervention.  This is what Chazal are teaching us by drawing our attention to the first half of the story in contrast to the second half.

What difference does it make in the end?  Who cares if Hashem saved us through the derech ha'teva means of palace politics pushing out Haman or Hashem saved us by causing some supernatural unexpected turn of events? 

The difference is that history does not repeat itself.  The moment in time that saw a king called Achashveirosh on the throne with a queen called Esther and an advisor called Haman will never repeat itself.  There may be similar situations, but what is similar in some respects is different in others.  If Purim was an event that happened through derech ha'teva, then it's meaning is confined to a particular time and place, the parameters that derech ha'teva plays out in.  But if Purim is a supernatural intervention, the who and the when and there where don't really matter.  That same spiritual power that exists l'maalah min ha'teva can be unleashed and does unleash itself time and again.  Teshuasam ha'yisa la'netzah v'tikvasam b'chol dor va'dor.

safeik brachos l'hakeil where there is a rov

Achronim discuss whether the rule of safeik brachos l'hakeil applies even where there is a rov to be machria the safeik.  (Is rov mevarer te safeik or is rov just a hanhaga, but the safeik remains?)   

The Rambam paskens (Meg 1:11):

עיר שהיא ספק ואין ידוע אם היתה מוקפת חומה בימות יהושע בן נון או אחר כן הוקפה קוראין בשני הימים שהן י"ד וט"ו ובליליהם. ומברכין על קריאתה בי"ד בלבד הואיל והיא זמן קריאתה לרוב העולם:

If a city has a safeik whether it is a mukaf or not, the megillah is read on both 14 and 15.  You would have thought that no bracha is recited since each reading is a safeik, but the Rambam paskens that a bracha is said on the reading of the 14th because  הואיל והיא זמן קריאתה לרוב העולם, there is a rov -- most cities are not mukaf and read on the 14th.  

QED that where there is a rov, the rule of safeik brachos l'hakeil does not apply.

Similarly, the gemara (Yevamos 121b) relates:

ההוא דהוה קאמר ואזיל מאן איכא בי חסא טבע חסא אמר רב נחמן האלקים אכלו כוורי לחסא

An aku"m went around asking if anyone knew the family of someone named Chasa, as he had drowned.  When he heard this, R' Nachman swore and said the fish have eaten Chasa.  

R' Akiva Eiger in the gilyon ha'shas quotes from the teshuvos of Hagahos Maimonis who questions how R' Nachman could take an oath using shem Hashem in this case.  Where someone falls into mayim she'ein lahem sof, a body of water that we cannot see the banks of, e.g. someone fell off a boat into the Atlantic Ocean, we assume his wife cannot remarry because there is always a chance that he emerged somewhere without our knowing -- i.e. there is a safeik.  So isn't R' Nachman's oath a safeik use of Hashem's name l'vatala?

The Hg"M explains that in most cases in fact the person will have drowned.  We have a rov that says R' Nachman's oath was not l'vatala.  It is just a chumra in dinei ishus that prevents the wife from remarrying despite the rov.  

QED again that using the shem Hashem, whether as an oath, or whether in making a bracha, where one has a rov to decide the safeik, is not a problem.

The common denominator between these cases is that the rov is a metziyus, it is based on facts on the ground.  A case were there is a machlokes ha'poskim and the majority of opinions favor one side, i.e. a rov of theories, may be a different animal entirely.