“Therefore, Jewish villagers who live in unwalled towns celebrate the fourteenth of the month of Adar, making it a day of gladness, feasting, and festival, and for sending delicacies to one another.” (Esther 9:19)
“As the days on which the Jews gained relief from their enemies, and the month that had been turned about for them from one of sorrow to gladness and from mourning to festival; to observe them as days of feasting and gladness, and sending delicacies to one another, and gifts to the poor.” (Esther 9:22)
If one looks carefully at the above pasukim he will notice that in the first pasuk it mentions only mishlo’ach manos, whereas in the second pasuk it mentions both mishloa’ch manos and matonas l’evyonim. Why do we only mention both mishloa’ch manos and matonas l’evyonim in the second pasuk?
R’ Chaim Kanievsky zt”l explains based on a Gemara in Megillah (5b). The Gemara says: Initially Mordechai wanted to fix Purim as a Yom Tov, a day that it would be forbidden to do any melachah. However, in the end it wasn’t fixed as a Yom Tov. Since initially Mordechai wanted to fix Purim as a Yom Tov there is no mention of the mitzvah of matonas l’evyonim as one can’t give money to people on Yom Tov. In the end, however, since it wasn’t fixed as a Yom Tov, money isn’t muktzeh, therefore, there was a mitzvah of matonas l’evyonim, consequently, the pasuk mentions it.
With this R’ Chaim explains another difficulty with the above two pasukim. In the first pasuk mishlo’ach manos is written with a ‘vav‘, however, in the second pasuk it is omitted. R’ Chaim explains that the Rambam (Hilchos Purim 2-17) writes: “One should spend more money on matonas l’evyonim than on his Purim seudah and mishlo’ach manos”. Matonas l’evyonim is more important than mishlo’ach manos. Therefore, in the first pasuk where it only mentions mishlo’ach manos it’s written with a ‘vav’. In the second pasuk, however, where it talks about both the mitzvah of mishlo’ach manos and matonas l’evyonim, mishlo’ach manos is written without a ‘vav’ to show that matonas l’evyonim is more important.
The Gemara in Beitza (16a) famously teaches: “Money which one spends for Shabbos, Yom Tov, or for learning Torah, is returned to him.” Based on this perhaps we can offer another answer as to why the first pasuk mentions only mishlo’ach manos, whereas the second pasuk mentions both mishlo’ach manos and matonas l’evyonim. Originally Mordechai wanted to fix Purim as a Yom Tov, since it was a Yom Tov people were happy to spend lots of money as they were guaranteed to get it back. Even the poor people who had no money were happy to spend freely on their Purim seudah, therefore, there was no need for matonas l’evyonim. In the end, however, Purim wasn’t fixed as a Yom Tov, since it was no longer a Yom Tov, there was no longer a guarantee that people would get paid back. This meant that the poor were now scared to spend any money, therefore, there was a need for the mitzvah of matanos l’evyonim. The first pasuk was talking about if Purim would have been a Yom Tov, therefore, it doesn’t mention matonas l’evyonim as there was no need. The second pasuk, however, is talking about what happened in the end – in the end Purim wasn’t fixed as a Yom Tov, so there was a need for matonas l’evyonim.
[The Yismach Moshe asks, that if Purim ultimately was not fixed as a Yom Tov why do we mention in the Megillah that Purim is a Yom Tov? He answers, that in one way, Purim is a Yom Tov. The Gemara in Beitzah (16a) says, “Whatever one spends for Shabbos, Yom Tov, or for learning Torah, is returned to him.” This aspect of Yom Tov remains, because no matter how much one spends on Purim, he will be refunded and get that money back. This doesn’t fit with the peshat we suggested above.]
