Talmudic Interpretations of the Book of Esther: Esther 4:1-5:2 (Megillah 15a-b)

Part of a series on the extended aggadic sugya in Tractate Megillah 10b-17a. See the previous installments here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The Talmud offers an intricate interpretation of the Book of Esther 4:1–5:2 in Megillah 15a–b. These passages explore not only the historical and theological dimensions of the Purim story but also the psychological and symbolic undercurrents of its key figures.

The Talmud discusses Mordecai’s lament, Esther’s distress, and her bold approach to Ahasuerus, revealing deeper layers of meaning behind each event. The sages debate whether Mordecai’s cry reflected a political crisis—Haman’s dominance over the Persian king—or a theological one, as if Ahasuerus had, in effect, overpowered God. Esther’s agony is interpreted physiologically, as either the onset of menstruation or a sign of intestinal distress. The identity of Hathach (התך), Esther’s messenger, is linked to Daniel, with his name symbolizing either his fall from power or his key role in royal decision-making.

The Talmud further examines Esther’s transformation: initially a passive figure, she ultimately takes agency, even at the cost of her own future with Mordecai. Her approach to the king is framed as an act of both political courage and spiritual struggle, accompanied by divine intervention and miracles, including the supernatural lengthening of the royal scepter.

Outline

1. Mordecai’s Lament (Esther 4:1): Re Haman’s growing dominance over Ahasuerus, or re Ahasuerus’s overpowering God

2. Esther's Agony (Esther 4:4): Her fear caused either the onset of menstruation or a loosening of her bowels

3. Identifying Hathach (Esther 4:5): Daniel; his name reflects his fall from a previous high position, or refers to his central role in state decisions

4. Esther’s Inquiry (Esther 4:5): concern that the Jews had sinned against the Torah (Exodus 32:15)

5. A Messenger’s Discretion (Esther 4:12): one should avoid delivering distressing news directly

6. Esther’s Voluntary Submission (Esther 4:16): previously, sex with Ahasuerus had been coerced, but now she would approach him willingly; acceptance of permanent separation from Mordecai due to her voluntary submission

7. "Mordecai passed" (Esther 4:17): transgressing the usual festival rejoicing by fasting on Passover, or referring to him crossing a river

8. Esther’s Divine Inspiration (Esther 5:1; I Chronicles 12:19)

9. Haman's Complaint: The Economic Contrast (Esther 5:13) - Mordecai came from a background of wealth, while Haman descended from poverty; Haman was a former slave

10. The Weight of Haman's Wealth: Haman constantly carried his vast treasures in his thoughts, yet the mere sight of Mordecai at the king’s gate rendered all his riches worthless in his eyes

11. The Departure of the Divine Presence (Esther 5:1; Psalms 22:2, 21-22)

12. The Divine Assistance for Esther (Esther 5:2)

13. The Miraculous Lengthening of the Scepter: initially 2 cubits long, miraculously extended to a length of 12, 16, 24, 60, or 200 cubits; Parallels to other miraculous extensions

Appendix - Divine Reward, Spiritual Discipline, and the Merit of Torah Study in the Future Judgment (Megillah 15b; Isaiah 28:5-7)

1. The Crown of the Righteous in the World to Come: God's Future Role as a Crown for the righteous (Isaiah 28:5)

2. Homiletically Interpreting Isaiah 28:6: Virtue, Judgment, and Torah Study

3. The Attribute of Justice Questions Divine Favoritism of the Jews

The Passage

Megillah.15a.9-15b.2 ; Megillah.15b.7-10

Mordecai’s Lament (Esther 4:1): Re Haman’s growing dominance over Ahasuerus, or re Ahasuerus’s overpowering God

The Talmud asks what Mordecai cried out upon learning of Haman’s rise.

Rav interprets it as recognizing Haman’s growing dominance¹ over Ahasuerus.

In contrast, Shmuel suggests a theological meaning, that it seemed as if Ahasuerus, the earthly king,² had overpowered (גבר) God, the supreme King.³

״ומרדכי ידע את כל אשר נעשה״.

מאי אמר?

רב אמר: גבה המן מאחשורוש,

ושמואל אמר: גבר מלכא עילאה ממלכא תתאה.

The Gemara returns to its explanation of the verses of the book of Esther.

The verse states: “When Mordecai perceived all that was done, Mordecai rent his clothes, and put on sackcloth with ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and cried with a loud and bitter cry” (Esther 4:1).

The Gemara asks: What did Mordecai say when he cried out?

Rav said: He said that Haman has risen above Ahasuerus, for he saw that Haman had become even stronger than Ahasuerus himself, and that he controlled all affairs of the empire.

And Shmuel said: The upper King has prevailed over the lower king, saying this euphemistically and insinuating just the opposite. In other words, it would appear that Ahasuerus, the lower king, has prevailed over the higher King, God in Heaven, Who desires good for the Jewish people.

Esther's Agony (Esther 4:4): Her fear caused either the onset of menstruation or a loosening of her bowels

The verse describing Esther’s extreme distress is interpreted by Rav as indicating that she began to menstruate⁴ out of fear, while R' Yirmeya suggests that her bowels were loosened in terror.⁵

״ותתחלחל המלכה״.

מאי ״ותתחלחל״?

אמר רב: שפירסה נדה,

ורבי ירמיה אמר: שהוצרכה לנקביה.

The verse states: “Then the queen was exceedingly distressed” [vatitḥalḥal] (Esther 4:4).

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of vatitḥalḥal?

Rav said: This means that she began to menstruate out of fear, as the cavities, ḥalalim, of her body opened.

And R' Yirmeya said: Her bowels were loosened, also understanding the verse as referring to her bodily cavities.

Identifying Hathach (Esther 4:5): Daniel; his name reflects his fall from a previous high position, or refers to his central role in state decisions

Rav identifies Hathach as the prophet Daniel. He explains that the name Hathach derives from “ḥatakh” ("cut down" - חתכוהו), indicating that Daniel was demoted from his previous high rank under Ahasuerus, now serving as Esther’s steward.

Shmuel, however, offers an opposite interpretation of the name, linking ḥatakh to “neḥtakhin” (נחתכין - "decided"). According to him, Daniel was called Hathach because his word carried authority in the affairs of the kingdom.

״ותקרא אסתר להתך״,

אמר רב:

התך זה דניאל,

ולמה נקרא שמו התך —

שחתכוהו מגדולתו.

ושמואל אמר: שכל דברי מלכות נחתכין על פיו.

The verse states: “Then Esther called for Hathach, one of the king’s chamberlains, whom he had appointed to attend upon her” (Esther 4:5).

Rav said:

Hathach is in fact the prophet Daniel.

And why was he called Hathach?

Because he was cut down [ḥatakh] from his greatness during Ahasuerus’s reign, as he was demoted from his high position. Previously he had served as a senior minister, and now he had become Esther’s steward.

And Shmuel expounded the name Hathach as derived from ḥatakh in the opposite sense, as he said: Daniel was called Hathach because all the affairs of the kingdom were decided [neḥtakhin] by his word.

Esther’s Inquiry (Esther 4:5): concern that the Jews had sinned against the Torah (Exodus 32:15)

R' Yitzḥak interprets Esther’s cryptic inquiry to Mordecai as a concern that the Jews had sinned against the Torah (חמשה חומשי תורה), drawing a parallel from another use of "zeh".⁶

״לדעת מה זה ועל מה זה״.

אמר רבי יצחק:

שלחה לו:

שמא עברו ישראל על חמשה חומשי תורה,

דכתיב בהן: ״מזה ומזה הם כתובים״.

The verse continues to relate that Esther sent Hathach to Mordecai after hearing about the decree: “To know what this [zeh] was, and why it [zeh] was” (Esther 4:5).

R' Yitzḥak said that

Esther sent a message to Mordecai, saying:

Perhaps the Jews have transgressed the five books of the Torah,

as it is written with regard to the two tablets: “On this [zeh] side and on the other [zeh] side were they written” (Exodus 32:15).

A Messenger’s Discretion (Esther 4:12): one should avoid delivering distressing news directly

The fact that Hathach did not personally return to Mordecai with Esther’s message is explained as demonstrating a principle: one should avoid delivering distressing news (קַלְקָלָה) directly.

״ויגידו למרדכי את דברי אסתר״,

ואילו איהו לא אזל לגביה.

מכאן שאין משיבין על הקלקלה.

The verse states: “And they told Esther’s words to Mordecai” (Esther 4:12),

but he, Hathach himself, did not go to tell him directly.

The Gemara explains: From here we see that one does not bring back a sad report. If one has nothing positive to say, it is best for him to remain silent. This explains why Hathach himself did not report the information to Mordecai, and Esther’s words had to be delivered by other messengers.

Esther’s Voluntary Submission (Esther 4:16): previously, sex with Ahasuerus had been coerced, but now she would approach him willingly; acceptance of permanent separation from Mordecai due to her voluntary submission

R' Abba notes that Esther's statement about going to the king "not according to the law" signifies a change—previously, her relations with Ahasuerus had been coerced (באונס), but now she would approach him willingly (ברצון).

Her words "if I perish, I perish" express her acceptance of permanent separation from Mordecai due to her voluntary submission.⁷

״לך כנוס את כל היהודים״ וגו׳ עד ״אשר לא כדת״,

אמר רבי אבא:

שלא כדת היה,

שבכל יום ויום עד עכשיו — באונס,

ועכשיו — ברצון.

״וכאשר אבדתי אבדתי״ —

כשם שאבדתי מבית אבא, כך אובד ממך.

Esther sent a message to Mordecai: “Go, gather together all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me, and neither eat nor drink for three days, night and day; I also and my maidens will fast likewise, and so will I go in to the king, not according to the custom” (Esther 4:16).

R' Abba said:

It will not be according to my usual custom,

for every day until now when I submitted myself to Ahasuerus it was under compulsion,

but now I will be submitting myself to him of my own free will.

And Esther further said: “And if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16).

What she meant was: Just as I was lost to my father’s house ever since I was brought here,

so too, shall I be lost to you, for after voluntarily having relations with Ahasuerus, I shall be forever forbidden to you.

"Mordecai passed" (Esther 4:17): transgressing the usual festival rejoicing by fasting on Passover, or referring to him crossing a river

The phrase "Mordecai passed" is understood differently:

Rav interprets “vaya’avor” as related to “aveira” (sin), suggesting that Mordecai fasted on the first day of Passover (thereby transgressing the obligation to rejoice on the Festival).

Shmuel understands “vaya’avor” in its literal sense of “crossing over”, explaining that Mordecai traversed a stream (ערקומא דמיא) to deliver his message.

״ויעבור מרדכי״.

אמר רב: שהעביר יום ראשון של פסח בתענית.

ושמואל אמר: דעבר ערקומא דמיא.

There is a dispute with regard to the meaning of the verse: “So Mordecai passed [vaya’avor]” (Esther 4:17).

Rav said: This means that he passed the first day of Passover as a fast day, understanding the word vaya’avor in the sense of sin [aveira], as by doing so he transgressed the obligation to rejoice on the Festival.

And Shmuel said: It means that he crossed over [avar] a stream in order to bring the message to all.

Esther’s Divine Inspiration (Esther 5:1; I Chronicles 12:19)

The Talmud notes that the verse states Esther "clothed herself in royalty" rather than "royal garments," prompting inquiry into its meaning.

R' Elazar, quoting R' Ḥanina, interprets this phrasing as implying that Esther was not merely wearing regal clothing but was imbued with the Holy Spirit (רוח הקדש).

A linguistic parallel is drawn from I Chronicles 12:19, where Amasai⁸ is described as being “clothed” by a spirit (רוח). Just as Amasai was “clothed” by a spirit, Esther’s “clothing” signifies being enveloped by the Holy Spirit.

״ויהי ביום השלישי

ותלבש אסתר מלכות״.

״בגדי מלכות״ מיבעי ליה!

אמר רבי אלעזר, אמר רבי חנינא:

מלמד:

שלבשתה רוח הקדש.

כתיב הכא: ״ותלבש״,

וכתיב התם: ״ורוח לבשה את עמשי״.

[...]

The verse states: “And it came to pass on the third day,

that Esther clothed herself in royalty” (Esther 5:1).

The Gemara asks: It should have said: Esther clothed herself in royal garments.

R' Elazar said that R' Ḥanina said:

This teaches that

she clothed herself with a divine spirit of inspiration,

as it is written here: “And she clothed herself,”

and it is written elsewhere: “And the spirit clothed Amasai” (I Chronicles 12:19).

Just as there the reference is to the spirit of divine inspiration, so too here, the term royalty is referring to the spirit of divine inspiration.

[...]

Haman's Complaint: The Economic Contrast (Esther 5:13) - Mordecai came from a background of wealth, while Haman descended from poverty; Haman was a former slave

Haman declares, “Yet all this avails me nothing” (Esther 5:13), when he sees Mordecai sitting at the king’s gate, indicating that all his wealth and power feel meaningless as long as Mordecai remains unbowed before him.

Rav Ḥisda explains that Mordecai came from an elite background,⁹ while Haman descended from poverty.¹⁰

Rav Pappa adds that Haman was even referred to as “the slave who was sold for loaves of bread” (טלמי).

״וכל זה איננו שוה לי״.

אמר רבי אלעזר, אמר רבי חנינא:

בשעה שראה המן את מרדכי יושב בשער המלך,

אמר: ״כל זה אינו שוה לי״.

כדרב חסדא,

דאמר רב חסדא:

זה בא בפרוזבולי

וזה בא בפרוזבוטי.

אמר רב פפא: וקרו ליה עבדא דמזדבן בטלמי.

Haman said: “Yet all this avails me nothing” (Esther 5:13).

R' Elazar said that R' Ḥanina said:

When Haman saw Mordecai sitting at the king’s gate

he said: Yet all this avails me nothing.

This may be understood as was suggested by Rav Ḥisda,

for Rav Ḥisda said:

This one, Mordecai, came as one with the heritage of a rich man [perozebuli],

whereas that one, Haman, came as one with the heritage of a poor man [perozeboti], as Mordecai had been Haman’s slave master and was aware of Haman’s lowly lineage.

Rav Pappa said: And he was called: The slave who was sold for a loaf of bread.

The Weight of Haman's Wealth: Haman constantly carried his vast treasures in his thoughts, yet the mere sight of Mordecai at the king’s gate rendered all his riches worthless in his eyes

Another interpretation suggests that Haman constantly carried his vast treasures (גנזיו) in his thoughts (חקוקין על לבו), yet the mere sight of Mordecai at the king’s gate rendered all his riches worthless in his eyes.

״וכל זה איננו שוה לי״ —

מלמד שכל גנזיו של אותו רשע חקוקין על לבו,

ובשעה שרואה את מרדכי יושב בשער המלך,

אמר: כל זה איננו שוה לי.

[...]

Haman’s previously quoted statement: “Yet all this avails me nothing” (Esther 5:13),

teaches that all the treasures of that wicked one were engraved on his heart,

and when he saw Mordecai sitting at the king’s gate,

he said: As long as Mordecai is around, all this that I wear on my heart avails me nothing.

[...]

The Departure of the Divine Presence (Esther 5:1; Psalms 22:2, 21-22)

R' Levi interprets the verse “And she stood in the inner court of the king’s house” (Esther 5:1) as an indication that when Esther reached the chamber of idols (צלמים), the Shekhina departed from her.

In distress, she cried out using the words of Psalms: “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” (Psalms 22:2),¹¹ questioning whether God judges unintentional sins (שוגג) as intentional (מזיד) and forced actions as voluntary.

Esther further wonders whether God abandoned her due to her referring to Haman as a dog in her prayers, citing the verse “Deliver my soul… from the hand of the dog” (Psalms 22:21).

In response, she revises her language and instead calls him a lion, referencing the subsequent verse: “Save me from the lion’s mouth” (Psalms 22:22).

״ותעמד בחצר בית המלך הפנימית״.

אמר רבי לוי:

כיון שהגיעה לבית הצלמים,

נסתלקה הימנה שכינה.

אמרה: ״אלי אלי למה עזבתני״?!

שמא אתה דן על שוגג כמזיד, ועל אונס כרצון?

או שמא על שקראתיו ״כלב״,

שנאמר: ״הצילה מחרב נפשי מיד כלב יחידתי״.

חזרה וקראתו ״אריה״,

שנאמר: ״הושיעני מפי אריה״.

The Gemara returns to its explanation of the verses of the Megilla. The verse states with regard to Esther: “And she stood in the inner court of the king’s house” (Esther 5:1).

R' Levi said:

Once she reached the chamber of the idols, which was in the inner court,

the Divine Presence left her.

She immediately said: “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” (Psalms 22:2).

Perhaps it is because You judge an unintentional sin as one performed intentionally, and an action done due to circumstances beyond one’s control as one done willingly.

Or perhaps You have left me because in my prayers I called Haman a dog,

as it is stated: “Deliver my soul from the sword; my only one from the hand of the dog” (Psalms 22:21).

She at once retracted and called him in her prayers a lion,

as it is stated in the following verse: “Save me from the lion’s mouth” (Psalms 22:22).

The Divine Assistance for Esther (Esther 5:2)

R' Yoḥanan describes how three ministering angels assisted Esther at the crucial moment when she appeared before the king.

One lifted her head, another surrounded her with grace (חוט של חסד), and the third extended the king’s scepter (שרביט) toward her.

״ויהי כראות המלך את אסתר המלכה״.

אמר רבי יוחנן:

שלשה מלאכי השרת נזדמנו לה באותה שעה:

1. אחד שהגביה את צוארה,

2. ואחד שמשך חוט של חסד עליה,

3. ואחד שמתח את השרביט.

The verse states: “And so it was, that when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she obtained favor in his sight; and the king held out to Esther the golden scepter that was in his hand” (Esther 5:2).

R' Yoḥanan said:

Three ministering angels happened to join her at that time:

1. One that raised up her neck, so that she could stand erect, free of shame;

2. one that strung a cord of divine grace around her, endowing her with charm and beauty;

3. and one that stretched the king’s scepter.

The Miraculous Lengthening of the Scepter: initially 2 cubits long, miraculously extended to a length of 12, 16, 24, 60, or 200 cubits; Parallels to other miraculous extensions

R' Yirmeya states that the king’s scepter, initially two cubits long, miraculously extended to twelve cubits. Other opinions claim it stretched to sixteen, twenty-four, or even sixty cubits.

A baraita draws parallels to other miraculous expansions in biblical tradition, such as Pharaoh’s daughter's arm extending to save Moses and the teeth of the wicked being enlarged.¹²

R' Elazar transmits a tradition¹³ that the scepter extended an astonishing two hundred cubits.

וכמה?

אמר רבי ירמיה:

שתי אמות היה,

והעמידו על שתים עשרה,

ואמרי לה: על שש עשרה,

ואמרי לה: על עשרים וארבע.

במתניתא תנא:

על ששים,

וכן אתה מוצא באמתה של בת פרעה,

וכן אתה מוצא בשיני רשעים,

דכתיב: ״שיני רשעים שברת״,

ואמר ריש לקיש: אל תקרי ״שברת״ אלא ״שריבבת״.

רבה בר עופרן אמר,

משום רבי אלעזר

ששמע מרבו

ורבו מרבו:

מאתים.

How much was it stretched?

R' Yirmeya said:

The scepter was two cubits,

and he made it twelve cubits.

And some say that he made it sixteen cubits,

and yet others say twenty-four cubits.

It was taught in a baraita:

He made it sixty cubits.

And similarly you find with the arm of Pharaoh’s daughter, which she stretched out to take Moshe.

And so too, you find with the teeth of the wicked,

as it is written: “You have broken the teeth of the wicked” (Psalms 3:8),

with regard to which Reish Lakish said: Do not read it as “You have broken [shibbarta],” but as: You have enlarged [sheribavta].

Rabba bar Oferan said

in the name of R' Elazar,

who heard it from his teacher,

who in turn heard it from his teacher:

The scepter was stretched two hundred cubits.

Appendix - Divine Reward, Spiritual Discipline, and the Merit of Torah Study in the Future Judgment (Megillah 15b; Isaiah 28:5-7)

Megillah.15b.3-6

This passage from the Talmud explores divine reward, spiritual discipline, and the role of Torah study in distinguishing Israel from other nations. It begins with a statement that, in the future, God will serve as a crown for the righteous, emphasizing humility as a prerequisite for this honor.

It then interprets Isaiah 28:6, linking key phrases to moral and intellectual virtues, particularly mastery over one’s impulses and dedication to Torah scholarship. The discussion culminates in a debate between the Attribute of Justice and God, questioning why Israel merits divine favor. God's response highlights the centrality of Torah study, but Justice challenges this, citing Israel’s own failings and hinting at their potential punishment.

The Crown of the Righteous in the World to Come: God's Future Role as a Crown for the righteous (Isaiah 28:5)

R' Elazar, quoting R' Ḥanina, states that in the future, God will serve as a crown (עטרה) atop each righteous individual. This is derived from Isaiah 28:5, which describes God as a “crown of glory” (עטרת צבי) and a “diadem of beauty” (צפירת תפארה),

The phrase “crown of glory” refers to those who follow God's will (צביונו), while “diadem of beauty” applies to those who anticipate (מצפין) His glory (תפארתו).

One might assume this applies to all who act accordingly, but the verse specifies it is only for “the remainder (שאר) of His people.” This means that only those make themselves “like leftovers”.¹⁴

ואמר רבי אלעזר, אמר רבי חנינא:

עתיד הקדוש ברוך הוא להיות עטרה בראש כל צדיק וצדיק,

שנאמר: ״ביום ההוא יהיה ה׳ צבאות לעטרת צבי [וגו׳]״.

מאי ״לעטרת צבי ולצפירת תפארה״?

לעושין צביונו, ולמצפין תפארתו.

יכול לכל —

תלמוד לומר: ״לשאר עמו״,

למי שמשים עצמו כשירים.

And R' Elazar further said that R' Ḥanina said:

In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will be a crown on the head of each and every righteous man.

As it is stated: “In that day shall YHWH of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, to the residue of His people” (Isaiah 28:5).

What is the meaning of “for a crown of glory [tzevi], and for a diadem [velitzefirat] of beauty”?

A crown for those that do His will [tzivyono] and a diadem for those that await [velamtzapin] His glory.

One might have thought that this extends to all such individuals.

Therefore, the verse states: “To the residue of his people,”

to whoever regards himself as a remainder, i.e., small and unimportant like residue. But whoever holds himself in high esteem will not merit this.

Homiletically Interpreting Isaiah 28:6: Virtue, Judgment, and Torah Study

The Talmud further expounds Isaiah 28:6, associating each phrase with virtues:

1. “spirit of justice” refers to self-discipline over one’s evil inclination (יצרו)

2. “him that sits in judgment” to judges who render truthful verdicts,

3. “strength” to those who overcome (מתגבר) their impulses

4. “those that turn back the battle” to scholars engaged in Torah debate (נושאין ונותנין)

5. “To the gate” is understood as Torah scholars who “who arrive early and stay late at the the synagogues and study halls” (i.e. who dedicate themselves to study from morning to night)

1. ״ולרוח משפט״ — זה הדן את יצרו.

2. ״וליושב על המשפט״ — זה הדן דין אמת לאמתו.

3. ״ולגבורה״ — זה המתגבר על יצרו.

4. ״משיבי מלחמה״ — שנושאין ונותנין במלחמתה של תורה.

5. ״שערה״ — [אלו תלמידי חכמים] שמשכימין ומעריבין בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות.

Apropos the quotation from Isaiah, the Gemara explains the following verse, which states: “And for a spirit of justice to him that sits in judgment and for strength to them that turn back the battle to the gate” (Isaiah 28:6).

1. “And for a spirit of justice”; this is referring to one who brings his evil inclination to trial and forces himself to repent.

2. “To him that sits in judgment”; this is referring to one who judges an absolutely true judgment.

3. “And for strength”; this is referring to one who triumphs over his evil inclination.

4. “Them that turn back the battle”; this is referring to those that give and take in their discussion of halakha in the battle of understanding the Torah.

5. “To the gate”; this is referring to the Torah scholars who arrive early and stay late at the darkened gates of the synagogues and study halls.

The Attribute of Justice Questions Divine Favoritism of the Jews

The Attribute of Justice (מדת הדין) challenges God, asking why miracles are performed exclusively for the Jewish people and not for other nations.

God answers that the Jewish people engage in Torah study, whereas other nations do not (making only the Jews deserving of divine intervention).

The Attribute of Justice responds by citing Isaiah 28:7, arguing that even the Jewish people have sinned, as they too are susceptible to moral and judicial corruption.

The Talmud interprets the word “paku” (פקו - “stumble”) as referring to Gehenna, and “peliliyya” (פליליה - “judgment”) as referring to judges (דיינין), reinforcing the claim that the Jewish people, like others, are liable for punishment.

אמרה מדת הדין לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא:

רבונו של עולם!

מה נשתנו אלו מאלו?!

אמר לה הקדוש ברוך הוא:

ישראל עסקו בתורה,

אומות העולם לא עסקו בתורה.

אמר ליה:

״גם אלה ביין שגו

ובשכר תעו

פקו פליליה״,

אין ״פקו״ אלא גיהנם,

שנאמר: ״ולא תהיה זאת לך לפוקה״,

ואין ״פליליה״ אלא דיינין,

שנאמר: ״ונתן בפלילים״.

The Gemara continues with an episode associated with a verse in Isaiah. The Attribute of Justice said before the Holy One, Blessed be He:

Master of the Universe!

how are these, referring to the Jewish people, different from those, the other nations of the world, such that God performs miracles only on behalf of the Jewish people?!

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to it:

The Jewish people occupied themselves with Torah,

whereas the other nations of the world did not occupy themselves with Torah.

The Attribute of Justice said to Him:

“These also reel through wine,

and stagger through strong drink; the priest and the prophet reel through strong drink, they are confused because of wine, they stagger because of strong drink; they reel in vision,

they stumble [paku] in judgment [peliliyya]” (Isaiah 28:7).

The word paku in this context is referring only to Gehenna,

as it is stated: “That this shall not be a cause of stumbling [puka] to you” (I Samuel 25:31),

and the word peliliyya here is referring only to judges,

as it is stated: “And he shall pay as the judges determine [bifelilim]” (Exodus 21:22).

The response of the Attribute of Justice was essentially that the Jewish people have also sinned and are consequently liable to receive punishment.

1. גבה - literally “rose [above], went higher”.

2. מלכא תתאה - literally: “the lower king”.

3. מלכא עילאה - literally: “the upper king”.

4. פירסה נדה - literally: “ ‘broke out’ as a niddah; on this expression, see Jastrow:

Pi[el]

פירס, פירש 1) to spread [...]

2) to put a wrap on, only in פירסה נדה she became menstruous.

And see Ben-Yehuda Dictionary, ד. פָּרַס – מילון העברית הישנה והחדשה / אליעזר בן־יהודה

The expression may be based on this biblical verse, Lamentations.1.17:

פֵּרְשָׂה ציון בידיה

[...]

היתה ירושלם לנדה ביניהם

Zion spreads out (פֵּרְשָׂה) her hands,

[...]

Jerusalem has become among them a thing unclean (נדה)

​In general, in Talmudic literature, there is a belief that intense emotions, such as fear, can influence physiological processes, including menstruation.

However, contemporary scientific understanding does not support this idea. Instead, stress is more commonly associated with delayed menstruation or amenorrhea.​

See the discussion in Jemy Brown, “Megillah 15 ~ Fear, Mood, and Menstruation” (December 27, 2021), at his blog Talmudology, where he concludes:

The three studies we've reviewed (even that last one with its weak findings) all suggest that there is indeed a relationship between psychological stress and menstruation. Generally, the effect of stress is to increase the length of the menstrual cycle which may result in amenorrhea.

And see also there “Niddah 9a ~ Fear, Mood, and Menstruation” (November 1, 2019)

5. See Wikipedia, “Defecation“, section “Voluntary and involuntary control“:

Sometimes, due to the inability to control one's bowel movement or due to excessive fear, defecation (usually accompanied by urination) occurs involuntarily, soiling a person's undergarments.

This may cause significant embarrassment to the person if this occurs in the presence of other people or a public place.

This phenomenon is well-known, compare the common English vulgarities:

Wiktionary, “shit oneself”:

To be very frightened or astonished (to the extent that one might lose control of one's bowels)

And ibid., “piss oneself“:

To be very scared (to the extent that one might lose control of one's bladder).

And see there for many related expressions.

6. זה - in the context of the Tablets of the Covenant.

7. By going to the king voluntarily, she would become permanently forbidden to her husband according to Jewish law.

Compare the halachic sugya in tractate Yevamot 56a-b regarding the status of a married woman who has been raped and whether she remains permitted to her husband and to marry a priest:

Yevamot.56a.18-56b.1:

אמר רב עמרם: הא מלתא אמר לן רב ששת

[…]

אשת ישראל שנאנסה,

אף על פי שמותרת לבעלה —

פסולה לכהונה.

Rav Amram said: This matter was said to us by Rav Sheshet,

[…]

With regard to the wife of an Israelite who was raped,

although she is permitted to her husband,

she is disqualified for the priesthood.

And a few sections later, Yevamot.56b.9:

אמר רבה:

הכל היו בכלל זונה,

כשפרט לך הכתוב גבי אשת ישראל

״והיא לא נתפשה״ אסורה,

הא נתפשה מותרת

Rabba said:

All married women who engaged in extramarital intercourse were included in the category of zona.

When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite:

“And neither was she taken,” as it is only in that case that she is forbidden,

it thereby indicates that if in fact she was forcibly taken, she is permitted

And after that, Yevamot.56b.12:

אמר רבא:

הכל היו בכלל ״אחרי אשר הטמאה״,

כשפרט לך הכתוב גבי אשת ישראל ״והיא לא נתפשה״ — אסורה,

הא נתפשה — מותרת,

Rava said:

All were included in the verse “Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she was made ritually impure” (Deuteronomy 24:4).

When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: “And neither was she taken,” as it is only in that case that she is forbidden,

it thereby indicates that if she was forcibly taken she is permitted.

8. Item 2 in the list there; = עמשי, item 1.

9. פרוזבולי - “perozebuli” - compare Greek presbeutḗs - “ambassador” - from presbeúō.

10. פרוזבוטי - “perozeboti”.

Compare later in the sugya, where it’s said that Haman had worked as a barber for 22 years, cited in my piece “Pt2 The Humiliation of Haman: The Dramatic Talmudic Elaboration of the Biblical Verse of Haman Carrying out King Ahasuerus's Orders to Honor Mordecai (Esther 6:11-12; Megillah 16a)“, section “Haman took Mordecai to the bathhouse, washed him, and cut his hair“.

11. Compare this to Jesus' cry on the cross "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?": Both passages reference Psalms 22 in moments of divine abandonment, but with different emphases. In the Talmudic passage, Esther feels forsaken upon entering an idolatrous chamber and questions whether her words or deeds led to divine withdrawal. She adapts her prayer in response, shifting her metaphor for Haman from “dog” to “lion” as she seeks deliverance.

In contrast, Jesus' cry on the cross ("My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?") is presented as the climax of suffering and divine estrangement, often interpreted as either a literal feeling of abandonment or a reference to the psalm’s ultimate message of redemption.

Both use Psalm 22 in distress, but Esther’s prayer is dialogical and adaptive, while Jesus’ invocation is final and existential.

12. Referring to the aggadic story of the lengthened teeth of Og, the biblical King of Bashan. See Berakhot.54b.4-5, where it’s described how when Og carried a mountain on his head to crush the Israelites, and God sent grasshoppers (קמצי) to hollow out the mountain's peak, causing it to fall around Og's neck. When Og tried to remove the mountain, his teeth extended unnaturally, trapping it in place, fulfilling the verse “You break (שברת) the teeth of the wicked” (Psalms 3:8), interpreted homiletically by R' Shimon Ben Lakish as meaning “You lengthened (שרבבת) their teeth.” The full passage:

ואייתי קודשא בריך הוא עליה קמצי

ונקבוה, ונחית בצואריה.

הוה בעי למשלפה,

משכי שיניה להאי גיסא ולהאי גיסא, ולא מצי למשלפה.

והיינו דכתיב: ״שני רשעים שברת״.

וכדרבי שמעון בן לקיש.

דאמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש:

מאי דכתיב ״שני רשעים שברת״ —

אל תקרי ״שברת״, אלא ״שרבבת״.

And The Holy One, Blessed be He, brought grasshoppers upon it

and they pierced the peak of the mountain and it fell on his neck.

Og wanted to remove it from his head;

his teeth were extended to one side of his head and to the other and he was unable to remove it.

And that is what is written: “You break the teeth of the wicked” (Psalms 3:8).

And this is in accordance with the homiletic interpretation of R' Shimon Ben Lakish,

as R' Shimon Ben Lakish said:

What is the meaning of that which is written: “You break the teeth of the wicked”?

Do not read it as: You break [shibarta], but rather as: You lengthened [shirbavta].

13. A lengthy tradition:

רבה בר עופרן אמר,

משום רבי אלעזר

ששמע מרבו

ורבו מרבו:

Rabba bar Oferan said

in the name of R' Elazar,

who heard it from his teacher,

who in turn heard it from his teacher:

This long tradition chain is generally reserved for an especially dramatic statement. Compare my piece here, discussion Mishnah Yadayim 4:3, section “Vote, and a law give to Moses at Sinai“:

בכה רבי אליעזר ואמר:

“סוד ה' ליראיו ובריתו להודיעם” (תהלים כה).

צא ואמר להם:

אל תחשו למנינכם.

מקבל אני מרבן יוחנן בן זכאי,

ששמע מרבו,

ורבו מרבו

עד הלכה למשה מסיני,

שעמון ומואב מעשרין מעשר עני בשביעית

R' Eliezer wept and said:

"The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it" (Psalms 25:14).

Go and tell them:

Don't worry about your voting.

I received a tradition from R' Yohanan ben Zakkai

who heard it from his teacher,

and his teacher from his teacher,

and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai (הלכה למשה מסיני),

that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.

And see a similar chain of tradition in the final Mishnah in tractate Eduyot (8.7), where R’ Yehoshua transmits a tradition from Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, tracing it back as a halakhah given to Moses at Sinai, that Elijah's role in the messianic future is not to determine purity or impurity, nor to exclude or include people, except in cases where individuals or families were forcibly (בזרוע) included or excluded:

אמר רבי יהושע:

מקבל אני מרבן יוחנן בן זכאי,

ששמע מרבו

ורבו מרבו,

הלכה למשה מסיני,

שאין אליהו בא לטמא ולטהר, לרחק ולקרב,

אלא לרחק המקרבין בזרוע, ולקרב המרחקין בזרוע.

R’ Yehoshua said:

I have received a tradition from Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai,

who heard it from his teacher,

and his teacher [heard it] from his teacher,

as a halakhah [given] to Moses from Sinai,

that Elijah will not come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near,

but to put away those brought near by force and to bring near those put away by force.

14. שירים - i.e. only those who humble themselves, considering themselves insignificant, will merit this divine crown.