In honor of the upcoming festival of Purim, it is fitting that we examine a teaching from our blessed sages (Shabbas 88a). They teach us that as a result of the miracle of Purim, Yisrael accepted the Torah out of ahavah—with love. This was not the case at Matan Torah, when the mountain was held above their heads imposingly, coercing them to accept the Torah. We find the following elucidation regarding the passuk in the Megillah (Esther 9, 27): "קימו וקיבלו היהודים, קיימו מה שקיבלו כבר"--"The Jews fulfilled and accepted"—they fulfilled that which they had already accepted. We must endeavor to explain why they fulfilled and accepted the Torah with ahavah specifically at the time of the Purim miracle and not at the time of Matan Torah.
Additionally, it is worthwhile exploring a curiosity we find specifically related to the simchah of Purim, which we do not find anywhere else. We have learned in the Gemara (Megillah 7b): "אמר רבא מיחייב איניש לבסומי בפוריא, עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי"—Rava said: One is obligated to drink wine on Purim until he cannot differentiate between "cursed is Haman" and "blessed is Mordechai." We must endeavor to understand the deeper significance of this obligation to drink enough wine that we can no longer distinguish between "arur Haman" and "baruch Mordechai."
Where Is There a Reference to Haman in the Torah
We will begin to shed some light on the subject by introducing a statement from the Gemara (Chullin 139b): "המן מן התורה מנין, המן העץ"—where is there a reference to Haman in the Torah? From the words ״המן העץ" ("from the tree"). In other words, the name Haman is alluded to in HKB"H’s statement to Adam HaRishon regarding the "cheit Eitz HaDa’as" (Bereishis 3, 11): "הֲמִן העץ אשר צויתיך לבלתי אכול ממנו אכלת"—have you eaten of the tree from which I commanded you not to eat? The word הֲ מִ ן is spelled exactly the same as the name הָ מָ ן. The Bnei Yissaschar (Adar 7, 9) explains the significance of this fact based on what is written in Mishnas Chassidim (Maseches Adar 3, 5-6) in the name of the Arizal. He explains that the wicked Haman is the embodiment of the "nachash hakadmoni," who convinced Adam and Chava and all of the souls incorporated in their beings to partake of the forbidden Eitz HaDa’as. In similar fashion, he persuaded Yisrael, at the time of the Purim saga, to partake of the feast hosted by the wicked Achashveirosh. This then is the question posed by the Gemara: "המן מן התורה מנין"-- from where did Haman draw the power to prosecute and oppose the Jews? To which it answers: "המן העץ"—he awakened the sin of the Eitz HaDa’as by convincing them to participate in and delight in the feast held by that wicked king.
In this manner, we can also explain why HKB"H orchestrated that Mordechai the tzaddik, specifically, would be the instrument of Haman’s downfall. For, we find in the Yalkut Reuveini (Bereishis 505): "מרדכי והמן היו גלגול אדם נחש"—Mordechai and Haman were reincarnations of Adam and the "nachash." For this precise reason, HKB"H arranged for the downfall of Haman—the "nachash hakadmoni"—to occur at the hands of Mordechai—the gilgul and tikun of Adam HaRishon.
With this in mind, we can understand what Rabbi Yonatan Eibschitz writes in Yearos Dvash (2, 9). He explains that Haman and his advisors planned to erect a tree standing fifty-amos high in order to evoke the memory of the "cheit Eitz HaDa’as." By doing so, they were certain that they would succeed in hanging Mordechai on said tree. So, this is how he interprets the Gemara’s question cited above: "המן מן התורה מנין"—from where did he seek the power to hang Mordechai on the tree? "המן העץ"—by evoking the taint of the "cheit Eitz HaDa’as." In fact, we might add that their scheme relied on the knowledge that Mordechai was a gilgul of Adam HaRishon, the guilty party in the "cheit Eitz HaDa’as."
So, it now behooves us to delve into the story depicted by the Megillah in order to gain a better understanding of the epic battle waged by Haman HaAggagi—the embodiment of the "nachash hakadmoni"—and all of his followers descending from Amalek—against Yisrael. As explained, he planned to evoke the guilt associated with the "cheit Eitz HaDa’as." How indeed did Mordechai the tzaddik—the gilgul of Adam HaRishon—succeed in defeating Haman and actually turning the tables on him? For, as we know, Haman and his sons were ultimately hung on the tree that they prepared for Mordechai.
The Simchah Emanating from the Domain of Kedushah as Opposed to the Simchah Emanating from the Other Domain
I would like to propose a wonderful explanation. Upon scrutinizing the events depicted in Megillas Esther, we find a central theme throughout. There is an epic struggle between the simchah of shameless depravity espoused by Haman and Achashveirosh—the agents of the "other domain"—versus the simchah associated with Torah and mitzvos—espoused by Mordechai and Esther. Both sides struggle to exert their influence over the Jewish populace. The Megillah opens with a description of the extravagant, excessive simchah, characterized by immorality and drunkenness, hosted by King Achashveirosh (Esther 1, 3): "בשנת שלוש למלכו עשה משתה לכל שריו ועבדיו חיל פרס ומדי הפרתמים ושרי המדינות לפניו, בהראותו את עושר כבוד מלכותו ואת יקר תפארת גדולתו ימים רבים שמונים ומאת יום"—in the third year of his reign, he made a feast for all his officials and his servants, the army of Persia and Media, the nobles and officials of the provinces being present. He displayed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honor of his splendorous majesty for many days--one hundred and eighty days.
As the story unfolds, we see how Haman HaAggagi, the oppressor and nemesis of the Jews, attempts to suppress the Jews’ simchah by lobbying Achashveirosh to issue a decree ordering the extermination of all the Jews. When his efforts succeed, we are informed (ibid. 3, 15): "והמלך והמן ישבו לשתות והעיר שושן נבוכה"—the king and Haman sat down to drink, but the city of Shushan was bewildered. On the one hand, the forces of tumah sit down to celebrate and get drunk: "והמלך והמן ישבו לשתות". On the other hand, distress and gloom prevail in the realm of kedushah: "והעיר שושן נבוכה". This pattern is replicated throughout the provinces ruled by Achashveirosh (ibid. 4, 3): "ובכל מדינה ומדינה מקום אשר דבר המלך ודתו מגיע, אבל גדול ליהודים וצום ובכי ומספד, שק ואפר יוצע לרבים"—and in every province, any place the king’s command and his decree extended, there was great mourning among the Jews, and fasting and weeping and lament; sackcloth and ashes were spread out for the masses.
However, after Mordechai successfully brings salvation to Yisrael, the picture turns around completely. The atmosphere surrounding Haman and his cohorts becomes one of grief and sorrow, as it is written (ibid. 7, 9): "הדבר יצא מפי המלך ופני המן חפו"—as soon as the king’s utterance emerged, Haman’s face became covered with shame. In stark contrast, simchah prevailed in the domain of kedushah, as it is written (8, 16): "והעיר שושן צהלה ושמחה. ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר"—then the city of Shushan was cheerful and glad; the Jews had light and gladness and joy and honor. This simchah is also expressed by means of Chazal’s institution to drink wine on Purim, as it is written (ibid. 9, 22): "לעשות אותם ימי משתה ושמחה"—to observe them as days of feasting and gladness.
Upon further consideration, it is apparent that this epic struggle between the domain of kedushah and the domain of tumah related to the expression of simchah takes places throughout the year—not only on Purim. From the perspective of kedushah, we are commanded to serve Hashem with the simchah of mitzvah, as it states (Tehillim 100, 2): "עבדו את ה’ בשמחה בואו לפניו ברננה"—serve Hashem with simchah; come before Him with joyous song. Furthermore, studying Torah and performing mitzvos result in simchah, as it states (ibid. 19, 9): "פקודי ה’ ישרים משמחי לב"—the mandates of Hashem are upright, gladdening the heart.
In contrast, the yetzer hara and the forces of tumah attempt all sorts of ploys to introduce sadness and lethargy into one’s service of Hashem. They attempt to convince him that service of Hashem is extremely difficult. Thus, they persuade him to replace the service of Hashem with forms of licentious simchah. They portray the pleasures of Olam HaZeh in the most brilliant of colors, convincing a person that this is the way to achieve true simchah.
In truth, their claims are untrue. The simchah associated with the delights of Olam HaZeh are short-lived. At the beginning, there is simchah, but at the end, there is sorrow and heartache. In the words of the wisest of all men (Koheles 2, 2): "לשחוק אמרתי מהולל ולשמחה מה זו עושה"—I said of laughter, "It is mad!" and of joy, "what does it accomplish!" Rashi comments: "I said of laughter, ‘It is mad!’"—it is mixed with tears and groans. "And of joy, ‘what does it accomplish!’"—after all, it culminates with sorrow. This indeed is what we find in the "tochachos" of parshat Ki Savo; the punishments are visited upon Yisrael, chas v’shalom (Devarim 28, 47): "תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה’ אלקיך בשמחה ובטוב לבב מרוב כל"-- because you did not serve Hashem, your G-d, with joy and with goodness of heart, out of an abundance of everything.
Without the Yetzer HaRa We Would Not Have the Simchah of Torah
After much consideration, I would like to explain in greater depth the struggle between the wicked Haman and the righteous Mordechai—the simchah of debauchery versus the simchah of kedushah. Let us refer to a statement in the Zohar hakadosh (Toldos 138a): "אצטריך יצר הרע לעולם כמטרא לעולם, דאלמלא יצר הרע חדוותא דשמעתא לא ליהוי"—the world needs the yetzer hara like the world needs rain; for without the yetzer hara, the joy of learning Torah would be absent. Thus, we learn an amazing chiddush: Without the yetzer hara, it is impossible to rejoice in the simchah of Torah.
Applying this concept, the Ben Ish Chai, in his sefer Ben Yehoyada (Kiddushin 30b), explains the implication of the Gemara’s statement (ibid.): "תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל, אם פגע בך מנוול זה משכהו לבית המדרש"-- a Baraita of the Academy of Rabbi Yishmael taught the following: If this despicable character engages you, draw him into the Beit Midrash. Here are his sacred words:
אם פגע בך מנוול זה להחטיאך בחמדה וקנאה ותאוה גשמית, אל תדחהו ותשליכהו לגמרי, אלא משוך אותו לבית המדרש להשתמש בו בדבר טוב, ששם יהיה לך קנאה מלומדי תורה, וחמדה ותאוה להסביר סברה ולעשות חידושי תורה, ויהיה לו מכוחו חדוותא דשמעתא, כי כאשר דבר סתום ומוקשה שלא יכלו לפתרו ולפרשו כל חכמי המדרש, ואתה זכית לפרשו ולפתרו כמה שמחה יגיע לך מזה.
If this despicable character engages you in an attempt to cause you to sin by means of coveting, envy or physical desire, do not dismiss him and thrust him aside completely. Rather, draw him into the Beit Midrash to use him for a good purpose. For, there you will have envy of those studying Torah, and the voracity and desire to provide a good explanation and to suggest novel interpretations of the Torah. From his strengths, you will achieve the simchah of Torah. For, when something is obscure and difficult and none of the scholars in the study-hall were able to solve it or explain it, and you did succeed in doing so, your simchah will be immeasurable.
Notwithstanding, this is somewhat perplexing. It is hard to imagine that it is impossible to achieve the simchah of Torah without the presence of the yetzer hara. After all, the source of simchah is HKB"H—the source of kedushah. For, it is written (Divrei HaYamim I 16, 27): "הוד והדר לפניו עוז וחדוה במקומו"-- Glory and Majesty are before Him, might and delight are in His place! Elsewhere it states (Tehillim 104, 31): "יהי כבוד ה’ לעולם ישמח ה’ במעשיו"—the glory of Hashem will endure forever; Hashem will rejoice in his works. Thus, we have explicit sources indicating that simchah emanates from HKB"H. So, why should we achieve simchah through the yetzer hara when we can achieve simchah through HKB"H?
Through the Cheit Eitz HaDa’as the Yetzer HaRa Stole the Element of Simchah from the Realm of Kedushah
It appears that we can reconcile this difficulty in a reasonable fashion by referring to the sacred words of the Shem MiShmuel (Succos 5678), which rely on the teachings of his father, the esteemed author of the Avnei Nezer, zy"a:
ובסגנון זה יש לומר בענין שמחה שהיא דבר עליון, כמו שכתוב עוז וחדוה במקומו... וכמו שהגיד כ"ק אבי אדמו"ר זצללה"ה שהסטרא אחרא הוא יללה, כשמה של זאת הרשעה [לילית] על שם שמיללת, עד כאן דבריו. ואפילו שמחה של הוללות אין לה מצד עצמה, אלא גזל ועושק הוא אתם מן הקדושה.
He states quite clearly that the source of simchah is the realm of kedushah. However, the powers of the "other side" stole it from the realm of kedushah. This then is the implication of the statement from the Zohar hakadosh cited above: "דאלמלא יצר הרע חדוותא דשמעתא לא ליהוי"-- for without the yetzer hara, the joy of learning Torah would be absent. It comes to teach us that we are obligated to extract the simchah from the yetzer hara. Thus, we will return the stolen article of value to the realm of kedushah by using the element of simchah to rejoice in the study of Torah, in keeping with the dictum above: "אם פגע בך מנוול זה משכהו לבית המדרש".
Now, it behooves us to explain when exactly the "other side" stole the element of simchah from the realm of kedushah. Let us refer to what we have learned in the Gemara (Berachos 40a): תניא אילן שאכל ממנו אדם הראשון, רבי מאיר אומר גפן היה, שאין לך דבר שמביא יללה על האדם אלא יין, שנאמר (בראשית ט-כא) וישת מן היין וישכר.— it was taught in a Baraita: Concerning the type of tree from which Adam HaRishon ate, Rabbi Meir says: It was a grapevine; for there is nothing that brings wailing upon a person as wine does, as it is stated: "And he (Noach) drank from the wine and he became drunk." Similarly, the Midrash teaches us (B.R. 19, 5) regarding the passuk (Bereishis 3, 6): ותקח מפריו ותאכל, אמר רבי איבו, סחטה ענבים ונתנה לו— "She took from its fruit and she ate." Rabbi Eivo said: She squeezed grapes and gave it to him.
Regarding this matter, we find an incredible chiddush in the Ohr HaChaim hakadosh (Bereishis 1, 29): אמרו ז"ל שאם היה ממתין עד ערב שבת, היה מקדש על היין—those of blessed memory said: Had he waited until Erev Shabbas, he would have made kiddush over the wine. It appears that the source for this notion comes from the Siftei Kohen (Bereishis), one of the young disciples of the Arizal. He deduces from the language employed by the Midrash that had Adam HaRishon merely abstained until Shabbas Kodesh, he would have been allowed to partake of the fruit of the vine by fulfilling the mitzvah of making kiddush over the wine.
He adds a wonderful allusion, which he uses to explain the following statement of Rava’s in the Gemara (B.B. 97b): סוחט אדם אשכול של ענבים ואומר עליו קידוש היום—a person ("Adam") may squeeze the juice from a cluster of grapes (before Shabbas) and recite the kiddush of the day over it. Rava specifically said: סוחט אדם—alluding to the fact that we are obliged to make amends for the sin of "Adam" HaRishon, who drank wine that was prohibited, from the grapes that Chava had squeezed for him. To rectify his transgression: "A person may squeeze the juice from a cluster of grapes (before Shabbas) and recite the kiddush of the day over it.
"The mandates of Hashem are upright, gladdening the heart" versus "And wine will gladden the heart of man"
Like a loyal servant in the presence of his masters, I would like to elaborate on their idea. HKB"H prohibited Adam HaRishon to drink wine on the weekday. Had he abstained and waited until Shabbas, he would have been able to fulfill the mitzvah of making kiddush over the wine. Where is there an allusion to this fact in HKB"H’s warning to Adam HaRishon not to eat from the Eitz HaDa’as? First, however, let us reconcile a matter that perplexes the commentaries. They wonder why David HaMelech characterizes wine as follows (Tehillim 104, 15): "ויין ישמח לבב אנוש"--and wine will gladden the heart of man. We must also endeavor to explain why he compares the simchah associated with wine with the simchah associated with studying Torah (ibid. 19, 9): "פקודי ה’ ישרים משמחי לב"-- the mandates of Hashem are upright, gladdening the heart.
The matter is reconciled beautifully by the sefer Ateres Paz. He refers to Avraham Avinu’s remark to the malachim (Bereishis 18, 5): "ואקחה פת לחם וסעדו לבכם"—I will fetch a morsel of bread that you may nourish your heart. Rashi comments in the name of the Midrash: "The Torah does not employ the word "לבבכם״ (in the plural) but rather ״לבכם" (in the singular); this teaches us that the yetzer hara does not have control over malachim. We find that the plural form "לבב" alludes to both yetzers—the yetzer tov and the yetzer hara. This is also evident from the elucidation in the Mishnah (Berachos 54a) regarding the passuk (Devarim 6, 5): "ואהבת את ה’ אלהיך בכל לבבך, בשני יצריך ביצר טוב וביצר הרע"-- a person is commanded to love Hashem with all parts of his heart—referring to both his yetzer tov and his yetzer hara.
This then is the difference between wine and Torah. Regarding Torah, it states: "פקודי ה’ ישרים משמחי לב"—the singular term "לב" is used, referring to one part of the heart, the yetzer tov that grows and is enhanced with the study of Torah. The yetzer hara, however, is not gladdened by Torah-study; after all, Torah-study is the antidote used to eliminate the yetzer hara.
On the other hand, regarding wine, it states: "ויין ישמח לבב אנוש"—here, Scriptures specifically uses the plural term "לבב". Because on the one hand, wine is capable of gladdening the yetzer tov, if it is used to make kiddush on Shabbas Kodesh. On the other hand, however, it is also liable to gladden the yetzer hara, chas v’shalom, when it is consumed during the week for the sake of something other than a mitzvah.
This enlightens us with regards to HKB"H’s admonishment of Adam HaRishon (Bereishis 2, 17): "ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו, כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות"-- but of the Eitz HaDa’as Good and Bad, you must not eat; for on the day you eat of it, you will surely die. As we have learned, the Eitz HaDa’as was a grapevine, whose fruit was squeezed to produce wine. Regarding wine, it states: "ויין ישמח לבב אנוש"—referring to the two hearts, the yetzer tov and the yetzer hara. Thus, it turns out that it is analogous to the "Eitz HaDa’as Tov VaRa." For, if it is consumed for the sake of a mitzvah, it is "טוב"; for it enhances the yetzer "tov." Yet, if it is consumed for a purpose other than a mitzvah, it is "רע"; for it enhances the yetzer "hara."
This then is the message HKB"H was conveying to Adam HaRishon when instructing him not to eat from the Eitz HaDa’as "Tov VaRa." In other words, during the week, when wine has the status of "good and bad"-- "טוב ורע"—do not partake of it. For, there exists a grave, inherent danger that the yetzer hara will be enhanced and will affect you with the simchah of debauchery. As explained, this form of simchah is short-lived and false; it ultimately causes heartache, as conveyed by the passuk: "כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות"-- for on the day you eat of it, you will surely die—the illusory simchah will end poorly.
Thus, HKB"H was sending Adam HaRishon a very clear message. The prohibition to partake of the Eitz HaDa’as and to drink wine only applies when the Eitz HaDa’as is "טוב ורע". For...
