Comentario sobre Ester 1:23

It was in the days of Achashveirosh. He was the king of Persia¹The Persians conquered the Babylonians, and Achashveirosh succeeded Koresh to the Persian throne in the year 3392. who reigned in place of Koresh²There were other Persian kings with the name “Achashveirosh,” therefore Rashi identifies which “Achashveirosh” he was. (Mizrachi) at the end of the seventy years of the Babylonian exile.

QUESTIONS:
In general, the phrase ויהי בימי “and it came to pass in the days” is used to recount an occurrence that took place in the life of the person or during the period mentioned and is a method of dating that occurrence [just as ‘and it came to pass in the days of the judges’]. Here, though, the usage is self-referential, using the lifetime of Achashverosh to tell us about Achashverosh himself. The phrase “he was the Achashverosh who ruled from India to Ethiopia” seems superfluous. We do not know of any other Achashverosh that this could be coming to exclude. THROUGHOUT the entire Megillah, the name “King Achashverosh” is used. This verse is the only one to use the name Achashverosh without the appellation “King.” This indicates that we are talking about a time that he still wasn’t a king. If the absence of “King” is to tell us that he was not yet the monarch, then why are we told that he “ruled from India to Ethiopia”? THE phrase “who ruled” is written as המולך – in the present tense, rather than the past tense, אשר מלך as we would expect. Why?

To the Name of Hashem all greatness is proper, He is tremendously exalted above all praise.
To Avraham the son of Meir may He send courage, [as he] desires to explain the Megilah.
The speech of Avraham the Sefardi who is known as the son of Ezra: [Note: His father’s name was Meir, his family name was “ibn Ezra”.] There is no help [ezra], except for from Hashem, who engraves the laws of the world on the heart of the enlightened one while he is awake, so too in a dream He speaks to him, and on Him he will support [himself] when he begins to do any action, and he will remember Him always before words are uttered by his mouth. Behold, there is no mention of the Name [of G-d] in this scroll, and it is one of the holy books! Many have responded that it is [mentioned]: “[relief and salvation will arise for the Jews] from another place” [mimakom acher]. (Esther 4:14) This is incorrect, because Hashem is not known as Makomin any of the holy books, only as Maon [Residence], which is always lofty. Our Sages of blessed memory called Him Makom [“place”], since all places are filled with his honour. Further, what would be the meaning of the word “another” [in mimakom acher]? It seems correct in my eyes that this book was composed by Mordechai, and that is the meaning of “And he sent text to all of the Jews,” (Esther 9:30), and all of them were copies of one book, namely, the Megilah, which is the reason for the term “set text” [patshegen]. The Persians copied it, and it was written in the chronicles of their kings. They were idol worshippers, and in place of the honourable, awesome Name, they would write the names of their idols, as the Cuthites did, as in place of “In the beginning of Elokim’s creation” they wrote “In the be-ginning of Ashima’s creation.” Therefore, it was out of honour to Hashem that Mordechai did not mention Him in the Megilah. [Note – this answer is cited in the name of Rabbi Saadyah Gaon in the Second Version of Ibn Ezra commentary to Esther 4:14.]

He was [the] Achashveirosh. He was equally wicked from beginning to end.³Maseches Megillah 11a. He did not allow the resumption of the building of the Bais Hamikdosh after it had been suspended.

An understanding of this story needs that I make a brief introduction into how monarchies functioned when Egyptians, Medes, and Persians controlled the world stage. There were two types of monarchies: The first was a monarchy in which the king was elected by the people. The second type of monarchy was rule by force, in which the king conquered the country and became its ruler against the wishes of the people. This is what is told about Nimrod, and from these two appear two different types of governing:A. The powers of the king in the first type of monarchy were limited. The limitations to his actions are known. The limits of his powers were legislated already at the time of his election. Upon taking office, the king swore to follow the laws and practices of the country. B. In the second type of monarchy, however, the powers of the king were unlimited. He does what he desires. Though he might seek the advice of ministers, he did what he wanted, changing the laws of the country and its practices as he saw fit. He is the king and the law maker, all in one. There were five major differences between these two types of monarchies: 1. In the limited monarchy, the king was [seen as] taking care of the country, the head of state who legislated and was responsible for leading the country in its wars and in all of its issues. The people, in turn, pledged their allegiance (were subservient), accepting their duties to the king and agreeing to do things for mutual welfare, such as to pay and so on. In the unlimited monarchy, such as Sancherib and Nevuchednetzar, however, the country was totally subservient to the king, and its people were thought of as his slaves, and he can do whatever it is he wants with them, just as a master does with a slave he has bought for money. 2. The national treasuries in the limited monarchy belonged to the state. In the unlimited monarchy, they belonged to the king himself, like Pharaoh and Nevuchednetzar. 3. The king that ruled in a limited monarchy was not free to make major policy decisions without the approval of the country’s ministers. The unlimited monarch had no such restrictions, he would destroy and fix everything himself, without giving a thought to asking for advice or receiving permission at all. 4. The limited monarch was bound by the laws of the country and its [religious] dictates. The unlimited monarch could change the laws as he wished. 5. The capital city could not be changed in a limited monarchy; the king had to rule from the same city as his forebears. The unlimited monarch could change his capital city as and when he wanted. With this introduction we can proceed to the Purim story. Achashverosh, as received by our sages, was originally a commoner who, through his wealth, gained control over Media and Persia and strengthened his rule until he eventually conquered one hundred and twenty-seven countries through force. These had all originally been provinces of the Babylonian empire which had Babylon as its capital city, as explained in the Book of Daniel “upon the royal palace of Babylon” (4:26), and not Shushan, as it is written there (8:2) “I was in Shushan the castle, which is in the province of Elam”, and there is no mention of it being the [capital] city of the kingdom. And after he conquered all these countries, in order to consolidate his power, he married Vashti, a descendant of Nevuchadnetzar, [the former emperor of the Babylonian empire], and heiress to the throne. So from her side the throne was also his by inheritance. According to this his kingship was doubly assured. His wife was successor to the throne and he, himself, had conquered the empire. If his claim to power rested on his conquest, his dominion would be unlimited; if, however, it was based on his wife’s claim to the throne, the monarch’s power would be limited. Originally, the provinces of the empire had accepted Achashverosh’s dominion in the belief that his claim to power rested on his wife’s inheritance of the throne. The beginning of his monarchy was one of limited power. Achashverosh, though, wanted limitless power, and this was his prime motive in moving the capital city to Shushan, in hosting his huge banquet, and in commanding Vashti to appear before him. As we shall see, all these were deeply cunning strategies to achieve this goal of certainly prevail over all as it will be explained. This is why the writer opens with “Now it came to pass in the days of Achashverosh - he was the Achashverosh who reigned etc” comes to tell us that Achashverosh was not of royal stock, and he also did not come into power slowly, as a king of a small kingdom until it was forgotten that he was a commoner, and that after that he would grow slowly, in fact, it came to pass in the days of Achashverosh, when he was still a commoner. In those same days he became the Achashverosh who ruled from India to Ethiopia – his conquest happened so quickly that nobody remembered on which province exactly he had been king first, they only remembered that he was a commoner that reigned over all from Hodu to Cush. Also, in those days he reigned on one hundred and twenty seven provinces, and there wasn’t much time between him being a commoner and a king. That explains why the present tense is used – people could not recollect what he used to control. It all happened so quickly that people could only remember that Achashverosh the commoner now ruled over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces.

Who reigned. He reigned on his own, and was not of royal seed.⁴Ibid. He was very wealthy and he acquired the throne by distributing his money.

From Hodu to Cush, etc. Who reigned over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces [with the same authority] as he reigned from Hodu⁵India. to Cush,⁶Ethiopia. which are situated alongside one another,⁷Maseches Megillah 11a. and similarly [we explain], “For he ruled over the entire area beyond the [Euphrates] river, from Tiphsach to Gaza,”⁸I Melochim 5:4. [meaning] that he ruled over this side of the river, [with the same authority] just as he ruled over Tiphsach to Gaza.⁸Otherwise why mention only these two provinces.

When King Achashveirosh had established himself, etc. When the kingdom was firmly established under his control.⁹I.e., כשבת should not be interpreted literally as meaning “when he sat [on his throne].” Alternatively, Targum renders the literal translation and relates that Achashveirosh had in his possession the throne of King Shlomo. However, he was injured when he tried to sit on it.He had his craftsmen build for him a replica which had just been completed and that is the meaning of “he sat on his throne.” Our Rabbis, however, explained it differently in Maseches Megillah.¹⁰11b, which interpret it as “when Achashveirosh gained his composure.” Until now Achashveirosh was afraid that the Jewish exile would finish at the end of seventy years as predicted by Yirmiyahu [29:10]. However, Achashveirosh [mistakenly] calculated that the seventy years had already elapsed and concluded that the Jews would never be redeemed but will remain under his dominion. He celebrated at his feast by using the vessels confiscated from the Bais Hamikdosh.

QUESTIONS:
THE phrase “in those days” is superfluous. The previous verse already stated that it came to pass in the days of Achashverosh.” Why is the phrase used here? ALSO, “King Achashverosh” is unnecessary, for he was mentioned in the previous verse. Would it not have been better to say, “When he sat on the throne of his reign”? ALSO, to state that most of the story happens while he sat on the throne of his reign, and that it happens in Shushan – there is no need to repeat [these two ideas, so why do we have them repeated here?]

THE phrase in those days comes to tell how, at the outset of his rule, his power became so strong he decided to move the royal residence from Babylon to Shushan, and made Shushan the palace and the capital of the kingdom. And with this he had two objectives: First, it would show his power, that he intended to rule with unlimited power to the point that he was not afraid of a public rebellion at the change of location. Second, it would demonstrate his greatness and arrogance. Generally, when a commoner accedes to the throne, it is an honor for him to be able to sit on the same throne as his royal predecessors. He would not make a new one for himself because doing so would diminish his honor. Achashverosh, however, was so arrogant that he ignored all his predecessors, constructing a new throne and moving the capital city to Shushan. This demonstrated that he did not come to power and dominion over the kingdom of Bavel through public consent, but through his bow and sword. And through this, all surrendered and went down to Shushan in Persia. This did not take place after many years in power but immediately in those days it already seemed that King Achashverosh sat on the throne of his kingdom as one of royal pedigree, sitting on the throne of his kingdom, without recourse to the honor of his predecessors.

The nobles. Governors, in the Persian language.¹¹Maseches Megillah 12a. Alternatively, people of royal descent. (Ibn Ezra)

QUESTIONS:
WHY did Achashverosh host this huge banquet? The precise reason is not stated.WHAT need saw the writers of the Megillah to state all the details of the banquet?THE order of those called over [invited] is puzzling. First the “princes and servants” then the army, and then the text goes back to nobles and then to princes of the provinces. Why are “officials” mentioned twice and why are the “governors and officials” mentioned after the “servants” who are, presumably, of lower status? And one understands that princes of the provinces are included in the general princes.WHAT is the need to say “before him”?WHY does it say “in the third year of his reign,” whereas when Esther becomes queen, the phrase “in the seventh year of his kingdom” is used?

In order to achieve his ambition of unlimited power in the third year of his reign (this is the kingdom that he thought of reigning with a strong hand for many years) he made a banquet as a cunning stratagem towards this end. The order of those present at the banquet teaches us Achashverosh’s the purpose of his intentions: he sat first (i.e. giving more honor) all his officials and servants, the army of Paras and Madai, and only after them the governors and officials who were before him, that is who had preceded him, holding office before Achashverosh conquered their countries. This clearly demonstrated his conviction that his rule was not dependent on their agreement and appointment because, if so, wouldn’t the officials of the major states come before those of the small country he originally controlled and wouldn’t they definitely precede the servants and soldiers of the army? By placing his own servants and the army of conquest first, he showed that he regarded the governors and officials as merely vestiges of the era before him and before his conquest occurred – and now they are placed below him as lower and despised servants.

[For] many days. He made a feast for them.¹²I.e., “for many days” refers back to “the feast” [v. 3] and not to the exhibition of “the affluence and eminence of his kingdom.” [v. 4] (Sifsei Chachomim)

QUESTIONS:
WHY did Achashverosh feel the need to display his wealth to the assembled nations?WHAT is the point of the repetitive “honor of his great splendor”?WHY are we told that this display lasted for “many days”?

WHEN he showed - we have already explained that in a monarchy of limited power, the national wealth and treasuries belong to the nation, not to the king. He is not free to make himself great by displaying them as his own. In order to rule with absolute power, Achashverosh appropriated them and exhibited them before the assembled nation like a man who flaunts his own personal wealth. Therefore, he displayed the wealth of his glorious kingdom in front of many nations as it belonged to him, available for his own personal honor through his accession to the throne. Every king requires wealth, but a ruler over an empire of one hundred and twenty-seven nations obviously needs commensurate riches and prestige. So he showed them the honor of his great splendor, and not only for one or two days but for many days, a hundred and eight days. This was a clear indication to all that he had burglarized and taken the treasuries as his own possession and acquisition.

Of the garden. A place where vegetables are sown.

Orchard. Where trees are planted.

[There were] pure white drapes, fine woolen cushions, bluish emerald techeiles wool. He spread out various types of colored fabrics for them as spreads.¹³Maseches Megillah 12a.

Brocaded with strands of linen and mauve, woolen argaman threads. Embroidered with threads of linen and purple; he spread these out for them on rods of silver and columns of marble.

Gold and silver couches. He set [them] up to sit upon for the meal.

On a floor. Floors of green and white, etc. Our Rabbis identified them as types of precious stones.¹⁴Ibid. According to the apparent meaning of the verse, these were their names.

As for drinking; golden utensils. [The word וְהַשְׁקוֹת means the same] as וּלְהַשְׁקוֹת and to give to drink.¹⁵Shemos 2:16.

Sundry. Different one from the other, and similarly, “and their customs differ,”¹⁶Below 3:8. and our Rabbis expounded what they expounded.¹⁷Maseches Megillah 12a. The Rabbis said that these vessels were taken from the Bais Hamikdosh.

And plenty of royal wine. It was abundant.¹⁸I.e., רב = הרבה. See Rashi in Bamidbar 16:3. And our Rabbis said that he gave each one wine to drink that was older than he.¹⁹Maseches Megillah 12a.

Proper. Because there are feasts in which they coerce those seated to drink [the contents] of a large vessel, and some can only drink it with difficulty, but here it was “with no coercion.”²⁰Alternatively, no one was coerced into finishing his drink quickly in order to make his cup available to someone else because there were enough cups for all [השתיה כדת].

Basically instructed. An expression referring to a foundation [יְסוֹד], meaning, so he instituted and commanded.

All his palace officials. All stewards of the feast: the chief baker, the chief butcher and the chief butler.

To satisfy each individual’s desire. For each one his desire.²¹Each person was served wine from his native land. (See Maseches Megillah 12a)

On the seventh day. Our Rabbis said²²Maseches Megillah 12b. that it was on Shabbos.²³Corresponding to “the seventh day” of the week.

Queen Vashti refused. Our Rabbis said because leprosy broke out on her,²⁴Ibid. Vashti did not refuse out of modesty. She was as lewd as her husband and would have attended had she not broken out with leprosy. Another opinion is that the angel Gavriel caused her to grow a tail. so that she should refuse and be executed. Because she would force Jewish girls to disrobe and make them do work on Shabbos, it was decreed upon her to be stripped naked on Shabbos.²⁵This punishment was in the form of מדה כנגד מדה, just as she had done, so it was decreed upon her. (Maseches Megillah 12b)

Angered. Because she sent him words of insult.²⁶ And that is why the king was extremely angered. (Maseches Megillah 11b)

For the king would thus place matters. For such was the king’s custom in every judgment, to present the matter “before all who were versed in procedural and legal concerns.”²⁷The Midrash states that Achashveirosh originally sought the advice of the Sages and asked them to judge Vashti. Realizing that judging Vashti would expose them to great danger, they opted to defer judgment by explaining to Achashveirosh that they were unfit to judge in a capital case. (Maseches Megillah 12b)

Most intimately associated with him. To present his affairs before them were the following: Carshena, Shesar, etc.

Concerning the proper procedure to follow. This refers back to “The king consulted the sages.”²⁸Above, v. 13.

Has aggrieved. An expression of iniquity [עָו‍ֹן].²⁹From the root עוה. However, according to the Ibn Ezra the root is עות meaning to act perversely.

For the affair of the queen will extend to all women. That she showed contempt for the king, [this will cause] all the women to show contempt for their husbands as well.

The noblewomen in Persia and Media will say, etc. This thing to all the king’s ministers. This is an abbreviated verse.

Causing enormous disparagement and rage. And in this matter there is much contempt and wrath.³⁰Esther Rabbah 4:8. “Contempt” because she had insulted him, and “wrath” because she had disobeyed him. The Gra explains the difference between the two terms חמה (fury) and קצף (anger). The latter [קצף] is displayed outwardly for all to see, and the former (;חמה one keeps to himself.

A royal edict. A royal decree of revenge, i.e., that he commanded to execute her.³¹And let it become a law that any woman guilty of a similar offense against her husband shall be executed.

To be recorded in the bylaws of Persia and Media. In the books of the statutes and the customs of the kingdom.

Never to be revoked. This statute from among them;³²ממוכן is another name for Haman (Maseches Megillah 12b). Haman was concerned that Achashveirosh might reconsider and take back Vashti, leaving him vulnerable to her vengeance. Haman therefore requested that the decree be irrevocable. this should be a statute and a law for anyone who shows contempt for her husband.

That Vashti must never again appear. And therefore she was executed.

And his people’s language be the one spoken. He can compel his wife to learn his language if her native tongue is different.³³Ibid. 4:12. The purpose for this law was to make wives show respect and subjugation to their husbands.