Komentarz do Estery 1:1

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.