וַיְהִ֖י בִּימֵ֣י אֲחַשְׁוֵר֑וֹשׁ ה֣וּא אֲחַשְׁוֵר֗וֹשׁ הַמֹּלֵךְ֙ מֵהֹ֣דּוּ וְעַד־כּ֔וּשׁ שֶׁ֛בַע וְעֶשְׂרִ֥ים וּמֵאָ֖ה מְדִינָֽה׃
Ce fut au temps d’Assuérus, de ce même Assuérus qui régnait, de l’Inde à l’Ethiopie, sur cent vingt-sept provinces.
Rashi
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.
Malbim
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?
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?
Masat Moshe
Our sages have accepted that whenever it says "Vayehi", it refers to a time of trouble..... The trouble in this case refers to the edcit to destroy all the Jews. The Rabbis have attributed this matter to Haman, which is why every one called out "oy vey!"
Tze'enah Ure'enah
Disponible uniquement pour les membres PremiumRashi
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.
Rashi
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.
Rashi
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.