Commentaire sur Esther 1:2
בַּיָּמִ֖ים הָהֵ֑ם כְּשֶׁ֣בֶת ׀ הַמֶּ֣לֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵר֗וֹשׁ עַ֚ל כִּסֵּ֣א מַלְכוּת֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּשׁוּשַׁ֥ן הַבִּירָֽה׃
En ce temps-là, le roi Assuérus était établi sur son trône royal, dans Suse la capitale,
Rashi on Esther
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Malbim on Esther
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” 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?]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Malbim on Esther
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy