פירוש על אסתר 1:1
Rashi on Esther
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Malbim on Esther
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?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ibn Ezra on Esther
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.]
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.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy