Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Ester 1:13

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ לַחֲכָמִ֖ים יֹדְעֵ֣י הָֽעִתִּ֑ים כִּי־כֵן֙ דְּבַ֣ר הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ לִפְנֵ֕י כָּל־יֹדְעֵ֖י דָּ֥ת וָדִֽין׃

Lalu raja berbicara kepada orang-orang bijak yang memahami zaman-zaman — sebab demikianlah cara raja menangani setiap perkara, yaitu di hadapan semua orang yang ahli dalam hukum dan peradilan —

Ramban

AND THESE ARE THE ORDINANCES WHICH THOU SHALT SET BEFORE THEM. The reason [why this whole section dealing with mishpatim — civil laws — is placed here, rather than being placed after the chukim — statutes — as is the order in the commandments given at Marah],1Above, 15:25: There He made for them ‘chock’ (a statute) ‘umishpat’ (and an ordinance). The “statutes” are the precepts for which the reasons are generally unknown. See Vol. I, p. 331. is that G-d wanted to explain to them first the civil laws. Thus we find that the first of the Ten Commandments dealt with the obligation of knowing of the existence of G-d, and the second one with the prohibition against idolatry, after which [following the giving of the Ten Commandments] He again instructed Moses, saying, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven,2Above, 20:19. meaning that you, [Moses] should warn them again to take to heart that which they have seen, so that they will be careful to keep these precepts which I have commanded them. For Ye yourselves have seen corresponds to the commandment, I am the Eternal thy G-d;3Ibid., Verse 2. Ye shall not make with Me — gods of silver etc.4Ibid., Verse 20. — corresponds with Thou shalt have no other gods,5Ibid., Verse 3. thereby completing the subject of idolatry; likewise, And these are the ordinances corresponds to Thou shalt not covet,6Ibid., Verse 14. for if a man does not know the laws of house and field or other possessions, he might think that they belong to him and thus covet them and take them for himself. This is why He said, thou shalt set before them just ordinances, which they should establish amongst themselves, so that they will not covet that which does not legally belong to them. And thus did the Rabbis say in Midrash Rabbah:7Shemoth Rabbah 30:15. “The whole Torah depends on justice; that is why the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the civil laws directly after the Ten Commandments.” Similarly G-d explains in this section of These are the ordinances additional laws about idolatry,8Further, 22:19. the honor of parents,9Further, Verses 15 and 17. murder,10Ibid., Verses 12-14. and adultery11Ibid., 22:15-16. — which are all mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
The Rabbis have explained:12Tanchuma Mishpatim, 6. “Before them, but not before the Canaanites.” This interpretation is based on the observation that it should have said, “which tasim lahem” (“thou shalt set for them”) just as He said, There ‘sam lo’ (He set for them) a statute and an ordinance;13Above, 15:25. thus since He said, which thou shalt set ‘liphneihem’ (before them), we interpret this to mean that they should be the judges, for it is with reference to a judge that this term [liphnei (before)] appears in Scripture: And both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Eternal, ‘liphnei’ (before) the priests and the judges;14Deuteronomy 19:17. Until he stand ‘liphnei’ (before) the congregation for judgment;15Numbers 35:12. ‘liphnei’ (before) all who know law and judgment.16Esther 1:13. The Rabbis further explained: “Before them, but not before laymen.” They interpreted [the verse in this way] because with reference to the ordinances it is written: Then his master shall bring him unto ‘ha’elohim;’17Further, Verse 6. the cause of both parties shall come before ‘ha’elohim;’18Ibid., 22:8. and it is also written, and he shall give ‘biphlilim’ (as the judges determine)19Further, Verse 22. — these terms referring to judges who are experts in the law, and who had received ordination20The process of investiture with judicial rights and functions. Ordination was conferred by three Sages, only one of whom himself had to be duly ordained. Ordination was valid only if both the ordainers and the ordained were in the Land of Israel. Once received in the Land of Israel, however, the authority of ordination became effective outside the Land as well. [in an unbroken chain from the time of those who had been duly ordained] by Moses our Teacher. This is why He said here that these ordinances are to be set before them, meaning before the elohim [expert, ordained judges] that He will mention further on, but not before Canaanites, and not before one who is not a judge by the standard of the Torah, such as a layman in this respect. It is forbidden to appear before such a person to act as a judge, just as it is forbidden to bring it before the Canaanites, even if he knows that this layman knows the correct law and will render him a proper decision. Even so it is forbidden for the litigant to set him up as a judge and complain before him so that he orders the other party to come to court before him, and the layman himself is also forbidden to act as their judge. Now even though the Sages have mentioned these two groups [the layman and the Canaanite] together, there is a difference between them, in that if the two litigants are willing to come before an Israelite who is a layman, and accept him upon themselves, it is permissible for them to do so, and they must abide by his decision, but to come before the Canaanites to act as judges between them, is forbidden under all circumstances, even if the Canaanite laws are in that particular case the same as our laws.
Tanya RabiBookmarkShareCopy

Rashi

וברוח אפיך AND WITH THE BREATH OF THY NOSTRILS — the breath that issues from both nostrils. Scripture speaks — if this were at all possible (i. e. if one may be permitted to speak so of God) of the Shechina (God) in the same manner as it does of a human monarch, in order to make peoples’ ears hear the facts in accordance with what usually happens to that they may understand the matter: when a man is angry the breath issues from his nostrils (and Scripture attributes this to God, also, when He is in anger). A similar idea is: (Psalms 18:9) “Smoke rose up in His nostril”, and also, (Job. 4:9) “By the breath of his nostril they are consumed”. And this is the meaning of what He said, (Isaiah 48:9) “For My name’s sake אאריך I will make long My אף”: when one’s anger subsides his breathing becomes long, whilst when one is in anger his breathing is short (consequently אאריך אפי signifies “I will not be angry”). The text continues ותהלתי אחטם לך which means “for the sake of My praise I will place a nose-ring in My nose to close up the nostrils against the anger and the breath so that they should not issue forth”. The word לך, for thee, in this text, means “for thy sake”, אחטם has the same meaning and root as in “a wild camel with a nose-ring (חֹטֶם)” which occurs in Mishna Treatise Sabbath (Mishnah Shabbat 5:1). Thus does the explanation appear to me. And wherever אף and חרון (i. e. where אף and words formed from the same root as חרון) occur in the Scriptures I say that it has the following sense: In the phrase חרה אף the first word is the same as (Job 30:30) “My bone is חרה with heat”, where חרה denotes burning and glowing, and this metaphor is used because the nostrils become hot and burning in a time of anger. The noun חרון is a derivation of חרה, just as רצון is a derivation of רצה, and therefore signifies “burning”. In the same way, חַמה which also signifies wrath really denotes heat (from a root יחם, not חמם, since the מ of חַמָה has no Dagesh. חַמָה is formed from יחם as עֵדָה, congregation, from יעד). That is why Scripture says, (Esther 1:12) וחמתו בערה בו “his wrath burned in him”, and when one’s wrath subsides one says, “his mind has become cooled” (נתקררה from קר cold).
Tanya RabiBookmarkShareCopy

Ibn Ezra

designated [literally: for the moment] someone who had been prepared for this moment (or, someone accustomed to go at any moment on Yom Kippur). The yod forms an adjective from the noun “moment”, as in the adjective “inner” [I Kings 6:27]. Those people who translate the word as “well-informed” are wrong, in my opinion. Our Sages, whose words are true, said [Yoma 66a] that this person was a kohen.
Tanya RabiBookmarkShareCopy