Esther · Chapter 1

It was in the days of Achashveirosh. He was the king of Persia who reigned in place of Koresh at the end of the seventy years of the Babylonian exile. — Notes: (1) The Persians conquered the Babylonians, and Achashveirosh succeeded Koresh to the Persian throne in the year 3392. (2) There were other Persian kings with the name “Achashveirosh,” therefore Rashi identifies which “Achashveirosh” he was. (Mizrachi) He was [the] Achashveirosh. He was equally wicked from beginning to end. — Notes: (3) Maseches Megillah 11a. He did not allow the resumption of the building of the Bais Hamikdosh after it had been suspended. Who reigned. He reigned on his own, and was not of royal seed. — Notes: (4) Ibid. 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 Hodu to Cush, which are situated alongside one another, and similarly [we explain], “For he ruled over the entire area beyond the [Euphrates] river, from Tiphsach to Gaza,” [meaning] that he ruled over this side of the river, [with the same authority] just as he ruled over Tiphsach to Gaza. — Notes: (5) India. (6) Ethiopia. (7) Maseches Megillah 11a. (8) I Melochim 5:4. (8) Otherwise why mention only these two provinces.

"To the Name of God belongs all greatness" — He is exceedingly exalted above all praise. For Abraham, son of Meir — may his Rock preserve him and grant him strength — who was pleased to explain this Megillah. Thus speaks Abraham the Sepharadi, called Ibn Ezra: there is no help (ein ezrah) except from Hashem, who inscribes an eternal law upon the heart of the discerning person; when he awakens, and even in a dream, He speaks within him, and by Him he is sustained when he begins to do any deed; he also remembers Him always before the utterance leaves his mouth. Now, in this Megillah there is no mention of Hashem, even though it is among the holy books, and many have answered that this is [hinted at] in 'from another place' (Esther 4:14) — but this is not correct, for Hashem is never called 'Makom' (place) anywhere in the holy books; rather, He is called 'Ma'on' (dwelling), which is eternally on high, and our sages of blessed memory called Him 'Makom' (the Omnipresent) because every place is filled with His glory. Moreover, what would be the sense of the word 'another'? What seems correct to me is that Mordechai composed this Megillah, and this is the meaning of 'and he sent letters' (Esther 9:20) — and all of them were copies of one document, which is the Megillah, in the sense of 'patshegen' (a copy/transcript). The Persians copied it, and it was written into the chronicles of their kings; and they were idol-worshippers, and they used to write the name of their abomination in place of the honored and awesome Name — just as the Samaritans (Kutim) did, who, in place of 'Elohim' (God) in the verse 'Bereishit bara Elohim' (In the beginning God created), wrote the name of their idol, 'Ashima' (i.e., 'Bereishit bara Ashima' — In the beginning Ashima created). And this is the honor of Hashem: that Mordechai would not mention Him in the Megillah. "Now it came to pass in the days of" — this Ahasuerus lived after Cyrus, [in the time] when Zerubbabel was with the exiles in the [period of the] Second Temple, only the House had not yet been built. In my opinion he is Artachshasta (Artaxerxes), and this is the meaning of 'and in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign' (Ezra 4:6), as I shall explain in the Book of Ezra. And the meaning of 'Now it came to pass in the days of' refers to all the matters recounted in this Megillah. And the meaning of 'this is Ahasuerus' is not like [the phrase] 'Abram — he is Abraham' (1 Chronicles 1:27) [i.e., it does not indicate that the same person bore two names]; rather, it is possible that among the early kings of Persia there was a king whose name was also Ahasuerus, and both of them were kings over Persia and Media — only this [latter] Ahasuerus reigned also over other provinces, which lie between India and Cush. For the land of Media and Persia is north of the Land of Israel, and India also, but Cush is to the south.

Behold, our Sages of blessed memory established and accepted that everywhere it says 'And it came to pass in the days of,' it indicates trouble, and they counted five such instances: 'And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel'; 'And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged'; 'And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz'; 'And it came to pass in the days of Jehoiakim'; 'And it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus' — and what trouble was there? 'To destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, etc.' And there our Sages of blessed memory attributed the matter to Haman, for it was he who did and brought this about. And this is the end of their statement, of blessed memory: 'Haman the wicked, may his bones be ground to dust, began to uproot among the vines' — that is what is written, 'to destroy, etc.' — 'they began to cry, "Woe!"' — 'And it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus.' And it is fitting to pay attention that just as in the other four verses the 'woe' is attributed to the one who caused it — 'And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel,' for Amraphel was the one who sought to kill Abraham; and likewise 'And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged, etc.,' for the judges were the cause of the woe; and likewise 'And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz,' who seized the synagogues and study-halls; and likewise 'And it came to pass in the days of Jehoiakim' — therefore here too it would be fitting to attribute the woe to Haman and not to Ahasuerus. Second: its saying 'this is Ahasuerus' — for who did not know that it was Ahasuerus? And likewise its saying 'who reigned, etc.,' as if there were another Ahasuerus who did not reign to that extent, and it says that this was the one who reigned from India, etc. — but we know neither this one nor that one. Third: what benefit is there in our knowing the number of his provinces? Fourth: its saying 'in those days' — for if specific days from his reign had been mentioned above, it would be correct to say 'in those days,' since the word 'those' indicates specific days already mentioned; but nothing was said except simply 'in the days of Ahasuerus who reigned from India, etc.' Fifth: its saying 'And it came to pass in the days of' shows that it comes to tell what happened in the days of Ahasuerus, and the telling shows that it concerns his making a feast for all his officials, etc. If so, its saying 'in those days' is superfluous, as if the decree of the opening verse had already concluded and it now tells a second matter, saying: 'in those days a second thing occurred, that he made a feast, etc.' — for if everything follows from the opening 'And it came to pass in the days of,' it should say 'And it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, when the king sat, etc., he made a feast' — so what is the point of saying 'in those days'? Sixth: why does it speak vaguely and then go back to specify? For since it is later going to state a specific time, 'in the third year of his reign,' why does it first say 'in those days,' from which the specific time cannot be understood? It would have been better for the opening words of its mouth to state right away, as in the second verse, 'in the third year of his reign, when the king sat, etc., he made a feast' — and it would be known that this was 'in those days,' for the third year of his reign was undoubtedly 'in those days.' Seventh: what was the reason for that feast? For behold, our Sages of blessed memory said it was because he had completed the work on the throne, or because the time had been completed for the annulment of the work on the Temple; and some say it was because the provinces had rebelled against him and he had subdued them; and others say it was his own birthday celebration — but it is fitting to seek a reason that is found written in the text itself. Eighth: the word 'before him' — for it is a superfluous and extraneous word, lacking in savor; for it should properly have said only 'he made a feast for all his officials and servants, the army of Persia, etc., and for the officials of the provinces' — for its saying 'before him' indicates that he did not make a feast for them, but rather that they were merely present before him when he made the feast for all his officials and servants — but would it not be regarded as strange that his servants should eat while they go hungry? Ninth: its saying 'in his showing, etc.' — for if it means that after their eating and drinking he showed them his wealth, etc., it should properly have said 'and he showed them his wealth, etc.' And if it means that first he showed them his wealth and afterward made the feast, that being the meaning of 'in his showing his wealth, etc. — for when he had shown his wealth he made the feast' — why then reverse the order and not begin with the showing of his wealth and conclude with the feast? Moreover, its saying 'in his showing' is like informing us, as if to say, 'know when he made the feast, etc. — it was in his showing his wealth, etc.' — but this is fitting only for those who already know that he showed his wealth and when it was; yet we know neither this nor that — so how can it say this in order to inform us when he made the feast, that it was 'in his showing'? And if its intent was to give a good reason for his making the feast, saying, 'know the reason for this feast: it is, of all things, because of his showing his wealth, etc., and therefore he made the feast' — does not the question also apply to the showing of the wealth itself: why did he show all this at that time? Tenth: its saying 'a hundred and eighty days' — why did it not combine them into a count of months and say 'six months,' rather than specifying them by a count of days, given that it is so great a quantity? And also the superfluity of saying 'many days'; and also the entire doubling of the text's language, 'the wealth of the glory of his kingdom and the honor of the splendor of his greatness'; and also the variation of the expressions. Eleventh: regarding its saying 'and when these days were fulfilled, etc.' — for it is fitting to consider whether there were two feasts, as is the view of the Targum — one before the showing of his wealth and one afterward — or whether the one mentioned here is the earlier one. If they are two feasts, a reason must be given for why he made the second one; and even if we say that there was one before the showing of the wealth and one afterward, in order to make rejoicing both before and after — why was the first for his officials and servants and the army of Persia and Media, the nobles and the officials of the provinces, while the second was for the people found in Shushan the capital; and the first was for the great, while the second was for great and small alike; and regarding the second it states the place where it was made, 'in the court of the garden of the king's pavilion, etc.,' while regarding the first it does not state the place where it was made? And if there was only one feast, why is it mentioned twice, and why does it place it once before the showing of the wealth and once afterward — for it cannot have been both before the showing of his wealth and after it — and why does it vary the guests, if it is all one and the same? Now regarding the second difficulty that we raised, I think our Sages of blessed memory intended to address it in their statement in Midrash Chazit, which reads as follows: 'This is Ahasuerus' — there are five instances of 'this is' for evil and five for good. The five for evil: 'he was a mighty hunter'; 'this is Esau, the father of Edom'; 'this is Dathan and Abiram'; 'this is King Ahaz'; 'this is Ahasuerus.' The five for good: 'Abram, this is Abraham'; 'this is Aaron and Moses'; 'this is Moses and Aaron'; 'and David, he was the youngest'; 'this is Hezekiah'; 'this is Ezra who went up from Babylon.' Rabbi Berechiah said in the name of the Rabbis: we have one that is better than all of them — 'Hashem our God, His judgments are in all the earth' — for the attribute of His mercy is in the world. End of quote. And it is fitting to pay attention to their words — what is the point of 'five for evil' and 'five for good'? What is the nature of these, and why did they enumerate them, and what does it give and what does it add? Furthermore, according to this version found in the Midrash, it brings six for good — for if it is 'this is Aaron and Moses' and 'this is Moses and Aaron,' one might think they should be counted as one — why does it bring both of them? And furthermore, the hidden find that Rabbi Berechiah discovered in the name of the Rabbis, 'we have one that is better than all of them' — who is so foolish as not to know that there is none like our God, who is better than all of them? And also its phrasing it in this language, 'we have one, etc.,' rather than saying 'the Holy One, blessed be He, is better than all of them.' And furthermore, there are several verses in which 'He' is mentioned regarding Him, blessed be He: 'Hashem, He is God'; 'for He is our God and we are His people' — and many such, beyond number — why did it choose this verse of all of them? And furthermore, what is the point of its saying 'for the attribute of His mercy is in the world,' when this is the opposite of the verse, which speaks of 'His judgments,' yet it transposes it into a matter of mercy? Now, there is no doubt that they were troubled by what we noted — the superfluity of saying 'this is Ahasuerus' — and they answered that there are ten of them, five for good and five for evil, which were stated in order to be expounded, and this is one of them. And the matter is to demonstrate His greatness and His providence, blessed be He, in the world, to set the world in order. For behold, we have found and seen that five sons of men arose and stood up to demolish and uproot, to destroy and to ruin, five great foundational principles upon which the survival of Israel and of the world depend. And they are: first, faith in His existence, blessed be He; second, the covenant of circumcision; third, the beloved land, upon which the essential commandments and the sustenance for Israel's survival depend, as is known; fourth, the Torah; fifth, the Temple. And the outline of the matter is this: first a person recognizes that there is a king who reigns and rules over him; and afterward his heart moves him to become a servant sealed with His seal; and afterward he takes for his dwelling the king's court, to stand and serve his king there, for that is where his home is; and afterward he learns the order of the king's service and the law of his ministry, so that he may understand how to find favor with his master, that his heart be whole with Him; and afterward, since it is inevitable that he will err inadvertently in serving his king and the king will come to hate him, he therefore searches and inquires by what path that king may be appeased and turn again to have mercy on him and love him as at first, before his will was transgressed. And these are the five matters spoken of between the King, the King of the world, and the people: as at first a person recognizes His existence, blessed be He; and afterward he seals himself with His seal to be a servant to Him, blessed be He — this is the seal, the sign of the holy covenant; afterward he goes to the beloved land, for that is His dwelling, blessed be He, as our Sages of blessed memory said, 'If you accept circumcision, you may enter the land' — for it is there that Hashem chose to be served by all who are close to Him. Fourth is the Torah, which brings one to action, for through it a man knows how to serve Hashem; and since there is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin, therefore a fifth is needed — the Temple — to atone through it for him, for all that he sins and becomes guilty. Now Nimrod touched upon the first, for he was 'a mighty hunter' — he hunted human beings and drew them near to idolatry, all the more so according to what our Sages of blessed memory said in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, that Nimrod was king over the generation of the Dispersion and caused the whole world to rebel against the Holy One, blessed be He, and caused the memory of His existence, blessed be He, to be forgotten by all creatures — and had the matter continued in this way, the world would certainly have been lost. And likewise Esau — he was the first to begin annulling the covenant of circumcision from the seed of Abraham. And likewise Dathan and Abiram began to despise the beloved land, all the more so according to our Sages of blessed memory, on the verse 'let us appoint a head and return to Egypt' — that at the death of Aaron they set up Dathan as head and Abiram as second in place of Moses and Aaron, and they turned back several stages on the way to Egypt. And King Ahaz annulled the Torah, as our Sages of blessed memory said on 'bind up the testimony, etc.' And Ahasuerus annulled the service of the Temple. Now, if it were left to man's free will, each one of these would have taken hold of his belief and carried it onward, and the world would undoubtedly have failed to survive. But His deeds, blessed be He — who devises plans so that His people Israel not be cast away — He saw and prepared corresponding remedies, correctives paralleling them: five for good against five for evil. And to allude to their being parallel, the word 'this is' is stated in the array of the five for good, opposite the array of the five for evil. Corresponding to Nimrod, who caused the whole world to rebel against the Holy One, blessed be He, came Abram, who proclaimed His name, blessed be He, throughout the whole world, as is known. And to sweeten the matter, let us consider what our Sages of blessed memory said: that when Abraham was born, they sought to kill him, and he was hidden in the ground for several years, for this was the first of his trials. And our Sages of blessed memory also said in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer that when Abraham, son of Terah, was forty-eight years old, he passed by the tower that the generation of the Dispersion was building, with Nimrod as king over them, and Abram said to them, 'What is this that you are doing? Are you rebelling against Hashem? You will not succeed.' And they told Nimrod, and he said, 'What is he to us? He is a barren mule that does not give birth.' Immediately, Abram cursed them in the name of Hashem, and then they were dispersed; and likewise in Seder Olam it says he was forty-eight years old when the earth was divided. And regarding all this, it is fitting to give a good reason: what did they see in this, and what reached them, to seek to kill him at his birth, when he had done them no harm and no damage? And what sort of answer is it that he was 'barren' — for if he is barren, how did his curse against them bear fruit? But the matter, in brief, is this: Nimrod and his faction, the builders of that tower, did not intend to raise a building high enough to reach up to Him, blessed be He, in order to fight Him as one man fights another — for that would have been foolishness, and they were not so ignorant. Rather, all their aim and all their desire was to strengthen the forces of impurity in this world, for they were wise men bent on evil, and they sought to accomplish this through their sorceries, as is written in the Zohar. And this is the meaning of 'and they found a plain' — for they found a place prepared for the calamity of their design, for there Lilith found rest and repose for herself, along with all her company of demons. And they, in their wisdom, recognized that a man was destined to be born who would cast them down and humble them, and overturn all their schemes and nullify all their plans — this is Abraham. For as against their strengthening the power of impurity in the land, Abraham, in the opposite direction, drew near and caused the Divine Presence to dwell in the world, and proclaimed and sanctified His name, blessed be He, in the land to all its inhabitants. And therefore Nimrod, through his astrology, understood the matter, and from the moment Abraham was born they sought to kill him. And also afterward, when he cursed them in the name of Hashem, Nimrod said 'a barren mule' — meaning, we need not fear him or fear him turning against us, for his belief will not be carried onward, since he is barren — and this is like their statement, of blessed memory, in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, that all who learned from Abraham, and the souls that he made, their faith was not carried on to their offspring after them, except to those who came forth from his own loins. And this is the meaning of 'a barren mule' — meaning, those who are not his own offspring will not be drawn after him, and there is no fear from his seed, for he is barren. But he did not know that there is no restraint upon Hashem to bring salvation, for 'Abram does not give birth, Abraham gives birth,' as our Sages of blessed memory said. And this is the meaning of 'Abram, this is Abraham' — meaning, the one who is Abram, who does not give birth — for this reason Nimrod was not afraid that he would come and rectify what he had corrupted, namely, that Abraham would give birth, for he became like a new creature, as our Sages of blessed memory said — and he rectified the whole world in His honor, blessed be He, as against what Nimrod had corrupted. And as against Esau, who began to corrupt — being the first of those who annulled circumcision from the seed of Abraham — it says, 'this is Moses and Aaron' — for what Esau began to annul, and which continued among Israel, Moses and Aaron rectified, as our Sages of blessed memory said in Shemot Rabbah, that Moses would circumcise and Aaron would perform the uncovering — and it brings 'this is Moses and Aaron' and 'this is Aaron and Moses,' because circumcision is as significant as the uncovering, and the uncovering as circumcision. And against the despising of the beloved land by Dathan and Abiram, who turned away the hearts of the Children of Israel from it, He, blessed be He, raised up David, who said, 'For they have driven me out this day from attaching myself to the inheritance of Hashem, saying, Go, serve other gods' — for he cherished the land to the point of taking upon himself, in being forced away from it, the appearance of one who serves idolatry, and he would weep before the eyes of all who saw him, to strengthen their hearts to honor the land — the opposite of Dathan and Abiram, who turned away the hearts of the Children of Israel and would turn the people back to Egypt. And as against Ahaz, who seized the synagogues and study-halls so that Israel would not occupy themselves with Torah, He, blessed be He, raised up Hezekiah, who hung a sword and said, 'Whoever does not occupy himself with Torah shall be stabbed with this sword.' And as against 'this is Ahasuerus,' who annulled the service of the House of our God, there arose 'this is Ezra, who went up from Babylon' and rectified and reestablished the Temple on its foundation, for his merit truly came to help. Now perhaps you will say: if so, then, that God did this corresponding to that, and everyone who came to do evil, He, blessed be He, made someone corresponding to him — who then will rectify things for us, in this bitter and hasty exile? What will become of us, that we not be lost, God forbid, before the rectification of the redemption comes? For who is there for us to rectify our situation with, great men as in earlier times, corresponding to everyone who corrupts and brings about calamity? To this Rabbi Berechiah came and said, 'we have one' — meaning, for us, the children of the exile in these generations of ours, we have One who is better than all of them, who will stand by us in all our troubles, so that we not be lost. For in earlier generations there were men sufficient to rectify and to protect through their merit, but we have none but Him, blessed be He. And this is the meaning of 'Hashem, our God, His judgments are in all the earth' — meaning, the attribute of Hashem, which is the attribute of judgment, and His being our God in particular — this very existence of His is for us also in His doing His judgments and the rigor of His verdicts throughout all the earth, to have mercy on us. And how sweet are their words in saying 'for the attribute of His mercy is in the world,' rather than saying 'that He has mercy in the world' — to allude that the Hashem mentioned is the attribute of mercy, by which He conducts Himself even when carrying out His judgment. Here, in this statement, he resolves the superfluity of saying 'this is Ahasuerus,' which we had raised as a difficulty. And in the manner of the plain sense, let us lift our hand over all the difficulties we have raised, in a straight path that He, blessed be He, may choose for us, so that this observation may be reconciled together with all of them — namely, by giving a good reason and understanding for what need there is to tell the story of Queen Vashti making a feast, and what need is there for us to know the matter and what she did and what was decreed against her, and that Memuchan — this is Haman — was her undoing, and that at his word she died. And I think that in the sweetness of the language of our Sages of blessed memory, they intended to answer this in their saying, as follows, in the Midrash: 'And it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, who slew his wife because of his friend; this is Ahasuerus, who slew his friend because of his wife.' End of quote. Now these appear, at first glance, to be words devoid of any purpose — for what is it to us that he killed his wife because of his friend, and killed his friend because of his wife? But the point is that their view is that the text, at the opening of the words of the Scroll, comes, through the superfluous saying of 'this is Ahasuerus,' to make known what He, blessed be He, wondrously did for Israel His people in those days — for after we were sold to be destroyed, etc., there was redemption for us from Him, blessed be He. Now, there was room for a mistaken and foolish person to speak and say: was it not truly good for the House of Israel that our lives were saved in the days of Ahasuerus, and that it was she who stood by us, for we had a kinswoman in the king's house — in such a way that the greatness and worth of His wondrous miracle, which He magnified in doing, would be diminished and lessened in their eyes. Therefore it began and said: recognize now the greatness of the miracle and the deliverance — for behold, woe was to you in the days of Ahasuerus, who killed his wife because of his friend, and his anger did not turn back from her until the evil was consumed, and he paid no heed to his wife and killed her because of his friend. And this same Ahasuerus, in that very same nature of his, did the opposite — he killed his friend because of his wife. That is to say: how can your hands find strength, and your heart be seduced to say that you had a kinswoman in the king's house? For behold, this is his way — to kill his wife because of his friend — and if so, now too he would kill Esther because of Haman his friend, and the helper would stumble and the helped one would fall, God forbid, were it not that Hashem was with us and turned his heart from one extreme to the other — that whereas he kills his wife because of his friend, this same Ahasuerus, in his very nature, did the opposite: He, blessed be He, made him kill his friend because of his wife. And therefore it related the whole incident, so that they would see and know the greatness of his fury — for just as when he grew angry at his wife he killed her at the word of Memuchan, so it should astonish us in our eyes that afterward he killed his friend because of his wife. Now, what appears to us to be the explanation is, as we shall mention, the words of our Sages of blessed memory in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer — namely, that at first he reigned over all the provinces, which were two hundred and forty provinces, and when he annulled the service of the Temple, he lost a hundred and thirteen provinces, and Hashem caused him to rule from then on over only the hundred and twenty-seven remaining provinces. Now let us come to the explanation. It is that from the very beginning of the words of the Scroll, it testifies and tells the greatness of the miracle that He, blessed be He, wondrously performed for us — a wonder upon a wonder — lest it arise in a person's heart to speak and say: behold, the one who sought our harm was the wicked Haman, who sought to destroy, etc., and we ought to praise King Ahasuerus, who did good for us, and hanged him, and gave a hand to the Jews to avenge themselves on those who sought their harm, and hanged the ten sons of Haman. And also, at first, that wicked Haman did not specify to the king concerning which people he was decreeing that evil decree — he only said 'there is a certain people,' unspecified — and perhaps, had he revealed to the king immediately concerning which people it was, he would not have sold them to him, in such a manner that the woe and the trouble in those days would be attributed not to the king but solely to Haman, the enemy of the Jews; while the salvation, joy, and gladness that was afterward turned to us would be attributed to the king, for he indeed did good for us — all the more so after Hashem showed him all that evil, that he lost a hundred and thirteen provinces when he annulled the service of the House of our God, for he would no longer do that which is not good for Israel. And thus the greatness of His miracle, blessed be He, would be lightly regarded in our eyes, thinking that it was not from the king that the plan to destroy Israel came. Therefore it comes and says: know, then, that on the contrary, the woe and the trouble is attributed to Ahasuerus, for his heart was bent toward evil against Israel. And this is the meaning of 'And it came to pass, etc.' — meaning, woe was to us in the days of Ahasuerus, for it is attributed to him and not to Haman alone, for the king's hand was in the wickedness first. For even though Haman began it, he desired it even more, as our Sages of blessed memory gave the parable of the owner of the mound and the owner of the ditch. And also, he gave the ring into his hand, even though he was the seller — which is not the way of sellers, for they receive payment — but the point is that he desired more to sell than Haman desired to buy. And do not let your heart mislead you to say: is it not inevitable that the king's heart should have been humbled over the loss of a hundred and thirteen provinces? For know that it says 'this is Ahasuerus' — meaning, he in his original nature, even though he is now the one who reigns from India to Ethiopia over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces only, and not over the two hundred and forty provinces as at first — he is still in that same nature, for his heart was not humbled over the loss of nearly half the kingdom. Now the heart of the one who hears will be embittered to hear such an evil thing — is it possible that the king was not grieved in his heart over the loss of a hundred and thirteen provinces? Therefore it says: see with your own eyes that it is indeed so — for behold, 'in those days, when, etc.' — meaning, in those days, which are the days when Hashem caused him to rule over only a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, he magnified the making of a feast and very great rejoicing. And because of this, it did not begin with a specific time, to say 'in the third year of his reign, when the king sat, etc.,' but rather said 'in those days,' for no arbitrary reason — for had it said 'in the third year, etc.,' how would one know whether it was before the loss of the hundred and thirteen provinces or afterward? Therefore it says 'in those days,' meaning, in those days when he did not rule with a great dominion as at first, but only over the hundred and twenty-seven, as mentioned — that was when it says to you 'in the third year, etc., he made a feast.' And lest you say: is it possible that he had no human understanding to sense his own loss, that he should now indulge in an abundance of rejoicing? — for behold, the one who did and made such a thing is described as 'when the king sat upon the throne of his kingdom,' for he saw that his kingdom had become settled, and he was confident he would live out the rest of his reign and that they would not rebel against him — for even though he dwelt in Shushan the capital, his kingdom would hold sway everywhere without restraint. And this is the meaning of 'upon the throne of his kingdom which is in Shushan the capital' — that the throne was attributed to his aforementioned kingdom, even while he remained in Shushan the capital, without having to extend himself throughout it to cast his fear upon them. Therefore, in the third year of his reign, he made a feast for all his officials and servants. And lest you say: but how is it known now that the remaining kings of the provinces would not rebel against him as the earlier ones did? — to this it answers: 'and the officials of the provinces before him' — for the army of Persia and Media and the officials of the provinces are the kings of the provinces, and they came before him, each from his place, to be subject to his command and to serve him. Now there was room to say that the counsel he took was not good — for excessive fraternizing leads to disrespect, and by being equalized together in eating and drinking, king and officials as one man, companions for many days, it would be a cause to lessen his importance, and they would hold him in contempt in their eyes, and it would be easy for them to rebel against him. And also, according to what our Sages of blessed memory said, that Vashti invited the wives of the officials, saying that if their husbands rebelled against her husband, their wives would be held as pledges. Therefore it says 'in his showing his wealth, etc.' — to say that when he made the feast, etc., while the officials of the provinces were before him, it was 'in his showing his wealth, etc.,' a hundred and eighty days — the reason being that in order to cement the bond of affection, he made the feast; and so that disrespect not result from it, the feast took place at the time of the showing of his wealth, according to the view of Rav and Shmuel in the Midrash — for by this, besides showing them that they could not equal him, he intended to cast his dread and fear upon them, so that they would fear him, for they would say: why should we pursue him, and who would dare to set his heart to conspire against him — behold, his hand has found ample power to cast down and humble all who rebel against him. And therefore it says 'in his showing' and not 'and he showed them' — to say that what is stated, 'he made a feast, etc.,' occurred at the time of his showing, or close to it, so that the bond of affection and the acquisition of fear would come together. It is also possible, in a manner similar to what was said on the first verse, and likewise regarding all the verses that follow it, to pay attention, in general, to the conclusion of the Gemara that obligates reading the whole Scroll from 'And it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus' — for behold, it would seem extraneous, in connection with the miracle and the deliverance, to tell the story of the honor of the splendor of his greatness, and his showing the wealth of the glory of his kingdom, and his making a feast for all his officials and servants and the officials of the provinces before him, and the pavement of his stones of marble, alabaster, mother-of-pearl, and dark stone, and hangings of white, fine linen, and blue held with cords of fine linen, and the giving of drink in vessels of gold, and also that Queen Vashti made a feast for the women, and that King Ahasuerus said to bring her before him and she did not come, and that the law was given to put her to death, at the word of Memuchan — for all these matters do not touch upon the essence of the miracle, except from 'a certain Jew' onward. However, I say that the unfolding narration of this entire introduction, from the beginning of the Scroll until 'a certain Jew,' is an opening of the eyes to see the wonders of the One perfect in knowledge — for through them the power of the miracle and wonder that He, blessed be He, wondrously performed for Israel His people in those days is magnified. For behold, there was room for one who has no share of understanding to look and reflect upon the wonders of the kindness He wondrously performed for us in the days of King Ahasuerus, and instead to diminish the measure of the miracles and the deliverance that God performed for us in those days, in bringing near the fire of the strangeness of nature to the true salvation, by saying: it was not for nothing that the king's anger subsided, and the evil was not consummated in accordance with all the matter of the evil deed that he had decreed against the Jews to destroy them, and that he sent letters to every province and every city, written and sealed with the king's ring, according to the law of Media and Persia which is not to be altered — were it not that he had not ruined his own decree, except for one of ten reasons. First: either that he remembered what he had done in annulling the service of the House of our God, and what had been decreed against him, according to the view of the Midrash and the Targum — that when he finished, he was betrayed of a hundred and thirteen provinces, and instead of reigning over two hundred and forty provinces, he afterward reigned only over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces — therefore, out of worry, he spoke, lest He, blessed be He, raise His hand against him a second time; and like the incident of the fool Pharaoh, this too might befall him, since the hand of Hashem had already begun to touch him — therefore he relented and healed us, by recalling the letters containing the plan of Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite. Or a second reason: to say that this was from none other than the officials and governors who ruled over every army, people, and province — this came to us because their hearts were not in doing the king's command to destroy, etc., and they were the ones who truly came to help, for they were at peace with the Jews who dwelt among them, and they took hold of the second letters, which were against the law, for a writ that is written in the king's name, etc., as the first, cannot be revoked. But they were among the rebels against the word of the king's decree in the first letters, for fear did not weigh upon them regarding their king, since his officials were all, together, great kings of the world, and he needed them. Or a person might say a third reason: neither this nor that, but rather that he remembered what he had done and what had been decreed upon the Jews to destroy them, and he saw that this was not worthwhile for him, for the king's loss through the annulment of the tax, tribute, and toll from a people so numerous and mighty outweighed the benefit of doing the will of that wicked Haman — therefore he relented of the evil that he had spoken of doing, for his eye was on his money-bag. Or a person might say a fourth reason: this is none other than that King Ahasuerus was a lover of the Jews, for he therefore saw fit and prepared, and dug out for them a great hearth in the court of the garden of the king's pavilion, and seated them on beds of gold and silver upon a pavement of marble and alabaster, etc., and pitched the hangings of his palace, of fine white linen, etc., upon rings of silver — and were it not that his love for them was great, he would not have made the second feast except out of his love for them; all the more so according to our Sages of blessed memory, that while the king was at his banquet he answered and said, 'Will your God make you a feast like this, etc.' And the one who went along, agreeing with the counsel of the wicked Haman, who plotted against the Jews to destroy them, did not understand his way — for Haman had not specified against which people he spread his net, but only 'there is a certain people, etc.,' and it was not known to the king that it was against Israel that he was scheming, until the matter of the evil deed was carried out swiftly, exactly as Haman commanded — for then he changed and specified that it was against the Jews, to destroy them, and he no longer had the strength to retract after his general assent. Or a fifth reason: a person might say, let not the merits of the miracle that our God wondrously performed, in His mercy, in those days, be exaggerated — for behold, Israel were not then guilty before the Omnipresent, for they had not sinned against Him a great sin for which they should be liable to all the evil that was decreed against them — except that they bowed to the image, but they did so only outwardly, and if they benefited from the feast, they were forced. Or a sixth reason: a person might say, was not Mordechai great in the king's house, and loved by him then more than his love for Haman — for he saw that Mordechai the Jew had acted and succeeded in war where Haman had not succeeded, as is known from our Sages of blessed memory and from the Targum — therefore it was easy for the king to act according to Mordechai's will and to turn back from doing the will of Haman for his sake. Or a seventh reason: let Israel now say it is good to give thanks to Queen Esther, for it was she who stood by us before the king, for his love for her was more wondrous than the love of other women, and he set aside his own will because of her will, and delivered us from our enemy, the wicked Haman, and hanged him upon the tree, for he had laid his hand upon her people and her birthplace. Or an eighth reason: to say that what came to help us was that he was a fickle king, changing to many different moods — in one moment he would speak of tearing down and uprooting a nation or a person, and within a little while he would turn again to have mercy — and his folly benefited us. Or a ninth reason: that such is the way of a king as great as he — for he establishes the land through justice, and if a royal decree goes forth from before him that is not according to law, he further looks and considers the depth of the matter, whether it is good or evil according to justice, and if he sees that it was an error, he retracts his decree and rectifies what he had corrupted — and so it might arise in a person's heart to speak and say: it was not for nothing that he retracted the writing that was written and sealed with the king's ring, which is not proper conduct and not befitting his honor — except that he reconsidered and saw that the matter was against the law, and so he relented and healed us. Or a tenth reason: this is, lest Israel say — did not that king remember Vashti, whose death he brought about over a light accusation, so that wives would not hold their husbands in contempt in their eyes — therefore, when he saw Memuchan, that is, Haman, that he had also cast his net over this woman, he then said: this is nothing but that his eye was evil upon her who lies in the king's bosom — and behold, he repeats his folly, for he recalled the deed of Esther and remembered the fate of Vashti, that he had decreed against her over the lightest of matters, and then his heart turned within him to be his enemy. Therefore Mordechai and Esther considered and arranged the entire unfolding sequence, telling this introduction, so that we might grasp the true measure of the greatness of the miracle, so great and exalted — in order to remove from the heart of those who belittle it, the reasons stated. And this is: regarding the first argument — see now the force of his heart, that he was not humbled over the loss of a hundred and thirteen provinces, and as his strength was then, when his kingdom was whole, so is his strength now against Israel; and this is why it begins, 'And it came to pass, etc.,' to say: woe was to us in the days of Ahasuerus — for all the matters upon which a person's heart might fall to diminish its worth are not so; for behold, he was not restrained from doing evil over the loss of a hundred and thirteen provinces after he had put forth his hand to annul the building of the Temple — for behold, this is Ahasuerus in his ancient nature, even now, reigning over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, having lost a hundred and thirteen from the two hundred and forty provinces — for his heart is bold; and on the contrary, 'in those days he made a feast, etc.,' for his heart was not grieved with worry over the matter of his loss, as explained above. And regarding the second reason — that the officials of the provinces' hearts did not go along with the counsel of Haman, and therefore they nullified the king's word in the first letters, since it was easy in their eyes to rebel against him — behold, this too was not so; on the contrary, they were all subject to his command, for when he made the feast, etc., the officials of the provinces were before him — all the more so since they would be ashamed before him because of the honor with which he honored them at the feast, and because of the fear — for behold, it was 'in his showing his wealth, etc.,' and they feared him, for he had power and might, in his abundant wealth, to take revenge on those who rebelled against him. And also, the third reason is not sufficient to allow us to attribute it to the loss of taxes and tributes — for behold, he continued showing the precious splendor of the greatness of his wealth for a hundred and eighty days, which is an immense abundance, as will be explained — and to a man for whom these things are like straw, the taxes of Israel would be reckoned as nothing, for he was of the kings of Media, who did not value silver and did not desire gold. And regarding the fourth reason, it says: see now that, on the contrary, he was a hater of Israel — for behold, after he had invited his officials and servants, etc., and the officials of the provinces, before him, what benefit was there in going back and inviting all the people found in Shushan the capital, the multitude of the common people, with great honor, in the court of the garden, etc., with hangings of fine white linen, etc., on a pavement of precious stones and pearls — were it not that his heart followed the counsel of Haman, as is explicit in Midrash Chazit, that they took counsel together to cause Israel to sin; and likewise the statement of our Sages of blessed memory in the Gemara, that the king said to the Jews who ate his bread at his table, 'Will your God make you a feast like this, etc.' Behold, this is nothing but wickedness of heart, to turn their hearts away from following Hashem; and as our Sages of blessed memory said, that aside from his foods and drinks he set up harlots before them to make them liable. And this is what the verse means by 'and when these days were fulfilled, etc.' — meaning, behold, when these days were fulfilled, what need was there for him to make a second feast, and also for those found there, etc., who are the multitude of the common people, after he had made one for the great ones of the world, the officials of his entire kingdom? But this is nothing but that his heart was bent toward evil, as stated. And regarding the fifth reason — lest they think that they were forced by the wine of his feasts, which was poured out for idolatry — it says that the drinking was according to law, without compulsion — for if Israel should say, 'we did not drink wine, for that which is not according to the law of Moses and Israel there is no compulsion to do' — and lest they lack the strength to hold back their hands from drinking it, he prepared preparations that would bring about the fulfillment of his desire, namely, to give drink in vessels of gold, etc., as will be explained, with God's help, so that nothing that he had schemed to do should be withheld from them. And regarding the sixth reason, it says, 'to do according to the will of each man' — and this is explained by our Sages of blessed memory in the Gemara: 'according to the will of Mordechai, a Jewish man, and Haman, a man who is an adversary and an enemy' — behold, thus it was in the eyes of the king, to do the will of this one like the will of that one, as the intent of the statement will be explained further on, with God's help. And regarding the seventh reason, it says: see now how great was the greatness of Vashti in the eyes of the king — for had she not trusted in his love for her, beyond the love of other women, and in the greatness of her importance before him, she would not have dared to also make, like him, a feast for women, with a royal hand, and not only that, but in the royal house itself — were it not that she knew that her standing before him was great and that he would not say to her, 'what are you doing?' And nevertheless, in order to fulfill his will, which arose in his spirit, he commanded to strip her naked and display her as on the day of her birth before the eyes of the officials and the peoples. If so, then, who could trust in the king's love for Esther, to overturn what he had schemed and had written and sealed with the king's ring, which cannot be revoked? For it is an argument from minor to major: if a spirit of confusion that arose in his spirit, which was not proper conduct and not fitting, annulled all his love for Vashti — how much more should it annul the etiquette of his kingdom, for 'a writ that is written, etc., cannot be revoked' — this cannot be set aside because of his love for his wife! And this is what the verse means: 'Also Vashti, etc., made a feast, etc., and it was like the king's feast' — for this is what is intended by the word 'also' — that this is nothing but on account of the greatness of his love for her; and nevertheless, on the seventh day, etc., it says, 'to bring, etc.' And regarding the eighth reason, it says that, on the contrary, once his fury rose in his anger he would not turn back from it — for behold, 'and his fury burned within him,' and his fury did not subside until after the evil was consumed and he had her killed, as it says afterward, 'after these things, when the fury subsided, etc.' — for his fury did not subside until after her death. And regarding the ninth reason, it says: behold, this is the greatness of the heart of this king — that upon his wife's decree he arranged a judgment according to law as to what should be done with Queen Vashti; and although, according to the law, she was not liable to death, as will be explained — nevertheless, upon the imagined argument of honor that Memuchan told him, that 'the matter of the queen will go forth, etc., to bring their husbands into contempt,' he paid no heed to the law. If so, then, all the more so now, regarding the honor of a writ that is written and sealed with the king's ring — that it is not consistent with his honor to revoke, for he does not turn back on account of any law or judgment. And regarding the tenth reason, it says: 'and the matter pleased the king, etc., and he sent letters, etc., that every man should rule in his own house, etc.' Behold, how great and strong in his eyes was the argument of Memuchan, that wives should not hold their husbands in contempt in their eyes — for he sent letters to the provinces of the king to publicize the matter, that every man should rule in his own house. If so, then, Haman would not be regarded in the king's eyes as though it were merely that his eye was evil upon the woman lying in the king's bosom, since he had already twice stirred up trouble against them over a light matter — for the greatest of the great was Memuchan's argument concerning Vashti in the eyes of the king, since he therefore sent letters to every people and province throughout the dominion of his kingdom. And in general, this also nullifies the seventh reason mentioned here — namely, to say that he set aside his will because of his wife's will — for that cannot be, since behold, 'and he sent letters, etc., that every man should rule in his own house' — if so, then, who is so foolish as to imagine that he nullified his word and decree in order to uphold his wife's words? To this it says: 'and he sent letters that every man, etc.' — and where would he take his disgrace, that the opposite happened within his own house — that she ruled over him to the point that he nullified his will, his writing, and his seal, which is against the law of his kingdom, for the sake of his wife? Behold, then, that the opening words of this Scroll's text — from them turns, from them a peg to hold and support the precious splendor of the greatness of the miracles and mighty deeds that God performed for us in those days — for we remove the basis of our redemption from being natural and set it upon the miraculous. For from 'And it came to pass in the days of' until 'a certain Jew,' it tells us the force of the king's heart, that he was not humbled over the loss of a hundred and thirteen provinces, and the display of his force in wealth and possessions — for therefore all the officials of the provinces would not defy his word, and also that he did not value the taxes and tributes of Israel enough to hold back his hand from destroying and ruining, for his treasuries had no limit. And likewise it revealed to us in this the force of Israel's sin, and the force of the king's fury, which burned within him and was not extinguished — neither by placing his love for her and her importance before him, nor by the fact that the law was on her side — and likewise the force of Memuchan's argument in the eyes of the king. For by all these kinds of force stated, the miracle is strengthened and magnified in the eyes of every people that is saved through Hashem. Therefore it is a commandment to read all the words of this letter from 'And it came to pass in the days of, etc.,' for through them the miracle is strengthened, as has been said. Now, in this matter, we have found and seen an understanding of the verse that is written, 'And Queen Esther wrote, etc., all the force, to confirm this second letter of Purim' — for it is closed and sealed; what is that 'force,' and what could they add beyond all the force of the trouble, 'to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, etc., written and sealed with the king's ring, which cannot be revoked' — and since they had already sent letters to all the Jews who are throughout, etc. — what, then, is this 'all the force' that was innovated for them? And if it is the force of punishment for those who do not accept upon themselves to observe the days of Purim — on the contrary, she sent, in a spirit of kindness, in her own words, to the Sages: 'establish it for us for the generations' — the verse testifies that the Jews established and accepted it of their own free will, to fulfill, etc. But this is nothing but that in all the letters that Mordechai and Esther wrote to all the Jews, concerning what the wicked Haman had decreed against them, to destroy, etc., and that the Holy One, blessed be He, in His abundant kindness, frustrated his counsel and ruined his plan, and hanged him and his sons upon the tree — and therefore they should accept to make a feast and rejoicing — behold, in all those letters there is no mention, from all that is written from 'And it came to pass in the days of' until 'a certain Jew,' of anything, for the narrative had no need of it, only the notice that Esther the daughter of Avichail, of the house of David, was taken by Mordechai to the king, and how, through the labor of the two of them, Hashem desired, and through their hands, succeeded in saving Israel from the hand of their despoiler. And therefore, after it is written that Mordechai and Esther wrote two letters, one after the other, as will be explained, with God's help, and the last was more severe than the first, then they saw that it was inevitable that the acceptance upon them and upon their offspring would be somewhat weak, in that they might say: behold, there was a ready recovery available to Israel in those days, through natural arguments, not one, not two, but ten — behold, these are what we have written — and it is quite possible that King Ahasuerus greatly relented of his anger on account of these, and did not destroy them, in such a way that the strength of the miracle would be diminished in their eyes, and their hands would slacken from holding fast to the acceptance of the second letter upon them and upon their offspring, and 'it would not pass, etc.' Therefore they acted wisely and wrote 'all the force' — that is, from 'And it came to pass in the days of' until 'a certain Jew' — for in this, 'all the force' comprises several kinds of force: the force of the king's heart, that he was not humbled after the loss of a hundred and thirteen provinces; and the force of his greatness, that the officials of the provinces were before him; and the force of his wealth; and the force of Israel's sin, that they were not forced; and the force of the king's fury, which burned within him, and neither the love of his wife whom he loved availed to extinguish it, nor the fact that the law was on her side; and also the force of Haman's argument in the eyes of the king. For all these kinds of force, truly stated in these verses, nullify those ten arguments like the dust of the earth, and magnify the miracle to no end. Therefore, in order that Israel hold fast to the acceptance of the second letter, they wrote 'all the force' — that is, from 'And it came to pass in the days of' until 'a certain Jew,' which contains all the kinds of force that we have mentioned; and since there are many kinds, the word 'all' is stated, so that through this they would recognize and accept with all their strength. And this is the meaning of the verse, 'And Queen Esther wrote, etc., and Mordechai, etc., all the force' stated — so that through this it would follow that they would continue to fulfill the second letter of Purim with a favorable countenance, as has been said. Now let us return to the continuation of the verse where we were, 'in his showing, etc.' Aside from what was said above, it may be said to be connected to its saying, 'the officials of the provinces before him' — namely, that the showing of one's wealth before the poor of the land is not comparable to showing it before the wealthy of the people. For before those whose money has run out from their purses, one can continue showing them the honor of one's wealth for many days, and each day show them something new beyond the previous; but before wealthy men, if one stands a day or two to show them significant things, or ten days, or twenty days, it is impressive — but one cannot continue to show an ongoing stream of good and novel things beyond the previous, for many days. It says: see the abundance of his wealth, which the Name magnified — for behold, the officials of the provinces were before him, who are, as our Sages of blessed memory say, the kings of the provinces — and nevertheless he continued for many days, a hundred and eighty days. And the meaning of the verse is: the army of Persia and Media and the officials of the provinces were before him 'in his showing his wealth, etc.,' and nevertheless he continued for many days, a hundred and eighty days. Or it may be said, to explain 'in his showing, etc.' — for behold, it would have been possible to say that the abundance of his wealth that he showed them was very great in comparison to the honor of the officials of the provinces who were before him, but not in comparison to the honor of the kingdom of the one who reigns from India to Ethiopia. Second, it would have been possible to say that among the things and objects that he showed, there were some that were not costly, each in itself, but combined together the whole was an extraordinary wealth. Or, third, similarly, with regard to the days — that his continuing for many days in showing his wealth might mean that he began little by little: on the first day he showed something worth a talent of gold, and on the second, ten, and on the third, worth twenty, and combined over the many days it amounted to great wealth. Therefore it tells us these three things, that it is not so — rather, that 'in his showing the wealth and honor of his kingdom' — for it is attributed to the honor of his kingdom and not to the honor of the kingdom of the officials of the provinces; and also that he did not show all the very costly and the not-very-costly objects individually, but rather those which are 'the glory of the honor of his greatness' — that is, that which is costly specifically in comparison to the glory of his greatness — and nevertheless he continued for many days. And furthermore, that he did not show them little by little, such that what he showed on the first day would not be attributed to wealth resembling the honor of his kingdom, etc., only in combination with all the days — rather, it means that 'in his showing the wealth, etc.,' for many days, was a hundred and eighty days — that is, do not conclude and say 'six months' as the sum of a hundred and eighty days, but rather a count of days, meaning that on each and every day he showed something pertaining to the wealth of the honor of his kingdom, etc. And this is the meaning of 'in his showing,' and it does not say 'and he showed them' — to say that in his showing everything pertaining to these descriptions, which lasted many days, he continued for a hundred and eighty days, that on each and every one he showed the wealth of the honor of his kingdom and the glory of the honor of his greatness. And for this reason it likewise does not say 'for many days,' lest it appear that only in the totality of the many days was it found that he showed the wealth, etc., but this was not so on each day by itself. Therefore it says that 'in his showing the wealth and so on,' many days ensued — and not that in the course of many days the showing of wealth ensued. And to sweeten the matter further, it specifies and says 'a hundred and eighty days,' as stated. It is also possible, in another way, to explain the continuation of these three verses, 'in those days, etc.,' and in particular for one who says that there were two feasts — which is the plain view of the Gemara, that this is why Rav and Shmuel disagree only as to whether he was clever or foolish for making the feast first for those far off and afterward for those near — but according to all opinions there were two feasts. It then says: 'in those days, when King Ahasuerus sat,' literally, upon the throne of his kingdom — that is, he was sitting in the royal house upon the throne, to cast fear — he made a feast for all his officials and servants and the officials of the provinces. Now why was the feast held while he was still sitting on the throne specific to the royal house, and not in the court of the garden of the king's pavilion, as in the second feast, where they would be in a spacious place and his throne would stand there? And also, why did he not call all the people found in Shushan, as he did afterward? Therefore it says 'in his showing, etc.' — to say that this feast took place at the time of his showing his wealth, etc., and therefore it was not fitting for him to show his wealth except in a private place, and not in the court of the garden of the pavilion, and also not in the presence of all the people found in Shushan, great and small. There is also a second reason: that it lasted a hundred and eighty days, and it would not have been fitting to call all the people found there, etc., for many days — but only great officials specifically.

The Questions: Everywhere that Scripture says "vayehi bimei" ("and it came to pass in the days of"), it comes to tell of some other matter, not otherwise known, that occurred in the days of a known and famous man — like "and it came to pass in the days when the judges judged, that there was a famine" (Ruth 1:1) and so on — and not that it recounts what happened to that man himself. So how does it say here "in the days of Ahasuerus, this is Ahasuerus," [as though telling the story of Ahasuerus himself]? Also, what it says, "this is Ahasuerus," is superfluous, for it is not known whom it comes to exclude. Also, throughout the whole Megillah he is called by the title "the king Ahasuerus," except here alone, where he is called simply "Ahasuerus" [without the title], which shows that it is speaking of a time when he had not yet become king. Also, what it says, "hamolech" ("who reigns"), implies that it is speaking of the ongoing state of his rule, whereas it should have said "asher malach" ("who reigned"). In order to explain this passage I must first set forth one introduction. Now, the appointment of a king in ancient times, in the governments of the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, the Persians, and the Medes, was by one of two paths: (1) One who reigns through the people's choice, who agreed upon a single man to make him king over them. (2) One who reigns by a strong hand, who conquered a land and reigned over them against their will, as is said concerning Nimrod. And from this there arose two kinds of kingdoms: (1) A limited kingdom — that is, the king's authority over the people had a known boundary; and this was mostly the case with a king appointed through the people's choice, for then, at the time of choosing him, they set it as law how far the king who would reign over them could extend his power and dominion, and for the most part such a king swore, at the time of his coronation, to uphold the customs and laws that were in the land. (2) An unlimited kingdom — that is, the king had authority to do as he pleased, and only occasionally sought the advice of his counselors of state, and he was also able to change the laws and religion of the land and enact other laws in their place, in such a way that he was both king and lawgiver in one. Now, between these two kinds of kingdoms there are five distinctions: (1) With one who reigns over a limited kingdom, the king was the guardian of the land, and was the head of the land to render their judgments and fight their wars and [handle] all their affairs, while they were obligated to him [only] for what was needed for the general welfare, such as taxation and the like. But with one who reigns over an unlimited kingdom by force, like Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, the land was subjugated to him, and all of them were considered his servants, and he had authority to do with them as he pleased, just as a master does with a servant he has purchased with his money. (2) With one who reigns over a limited kingdom, the treasures in the royal storehouses belonged to the land; but with one who reigns over an unlimited kingdom, the treasures belonged to him alone, as with Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar. (3) One who reigns over a limited kingdom could not do anything of general consequence except with the agreement of his counselors of state; but in an unlimited kingdom he could establish and destroy everything by himself, without taking any counsel or permission whatsoever. (4) The first was subject to the laws of the land and could not transgress its fixed statutes, while the second was himself the lawgiver and could enact other laws, as said above. (5) One who reigns over a limited kingdom could not change the royal city to establish the kingdom in another place, but had to sit upon the royal throne of the kings who preceded him, in the city that had merited it of old; but one who reigns without limitation could change it as he wished. On the basis of this introduction let us come to the explanation. Now, Ahasuerus, according to the tradition of our sages, was at first a commoner (hedyot), and afterward, through his wealth, became king over Media and Persia and grew strong in his kingship, until he conquered all the provinces, a hundred and twenty-seven in number, by a strong hand. Now, all these satrapies had belonged at first to the kingdom of Babylon, and until then the royal throne had stood in Babylon, as is said in Daniel, "in the palace of my kingdom which is in Babylon." But in Shushan there was no royal throne, as it says there, "I was in Shushan, which is in the province of Elam," and it does not mention that it was a royal city. And at the time that he conquered all these kingdoms, in order that the kingdom should endure in his hand, he took Vashti, who was of the seed of Nebuchadnezzar, to himself as a wife, and she was an heiress to the throne, and through her the kingdom reached him also by inheritance. Accordingly, the kingdom was secured in his hand either from the side of the conquest by which he had conquered them by a strong hand — and from this side he was able to reign over them as an unlimited kingdom — or from the side of the inheritance through Vashti, but from this side his kingship was limited. And since at the beginning of his reign the provinces were enticed to accept the yoke of his kingship and be subdued under him, thinking that the kingdom reached him by inheritance through Vashti — and from this side the beginning of his kingdom was a limited kingdom — while he wanted to dominate over them by force, as an unlimited kingdom: this was the essential stratagem behind his setting the throne in Shushan, and behind his making this great feast, and behind his commanding that Vashti be brought before him. All these were deep schemes to bring his intention into actuality, to dominate over them — and indeed he did dominate, as will be explained. Therefore it prefaces: "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, this is Ahasuerus who reigned," etc., to relate that Ahasuerus was not of royal seed, and also did not rise to his kingship by degrees — that first he would be king over a single province, until it would be forgotten that he had been a commoner at first, and only afterward gradually grow powerful. Rather: "and it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus" — in those days when Ahasuerus was still also a commoner, in those very same days, "this is Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethiopia" — in such a way that it is not stated that he reigned [first] in a certain province and [only later] reigned from India to Ethiopia, but rather it is stated only that Ahasuerus the commoner reigned from India to Ethiopia. And also in those [same] days he reigned over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, and there was no interval of time between his being a commoner and his mighty kingship — rather, in the very days of his being a commoner, there suddenly came into being a mighty king who ruled many peoples.

"Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus" (Esther 1:1) — Rabbi Levi said (Megillah 11a): "the brother of the Head," and "one of the same fortune as the Head." ["Brother of the Head"] — the brother of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, who was called "the Head," as it is said (Daniel 2:38), "You are the head of gold." And "one of the same fortune as the Head" — Nebuchadnezzar killed, and he [Ahasuerus] sought to kill; Nebuchadnezzar destroyed, and he sought to destroy. And so it says (Ezra 4:6), "And in the reign of Ahasuerus, at the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation." And Samuel said that in his days the faces of Israel were blackened like the bottom of a pot. And Rabbi Chanina said that everyone who mentioned him would say "woe to his head." Rabbi Yochanan said that everyone became impoverished in his days, as it is said (Esther 10:1), "And King Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land." The meaning of what he said, "brother of the Head," is to say that Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus are equal and similar in the strength of their dominion. And I say that there is proof of this from the book of Daniel: regarding the second beast it says (Daniel 7:5), "And behold, another beast, a second," but regarding the third it does not say "the third one," which indicates that the second is similar to the first, and therefore it says "a second." And Rabbi Levi explains that the name "Ahasuerus" indicates the essential nature of Ahasuerus's kingship — that his kingship was equally balanced in the scales against the kingship of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, and therefore he called them "brothers." And of Nebuchadnezzar it says (Daniel 2:38), "You are the head of gold," and so the kingdom of Persia is likened to silver, and silver and gold are always brothers together, everywhere. And this is proof that King Ahasuerus, who was of the kings of Persia (Ezra 4:6), resembles Nebuchadnezzar, and therefore they said of him (Megillah 11a) that he is "the brother of the Head." And they are both opposed to Israel — and this is known, that Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus are opposed to the holiness of Israel; therefore, "this one destroyed, and that one sought to destroy." There are here four sages, each of whom expounded the name "Ahasuerus." And all agree that his name indicates that he departed from the order proper to a king — just as the name given to the righteous indicates their surpassing distinction in rank, so with the wicked the name indicates that he departs from the order that is proper. And the name reflects the essence [mahut], and they disagree as to what the essence of Ahasuerus is. In Rav's view, the name indicates the greatness of his kingship, and therefore he expounded "Ahasuerus" as "brother of the Head." And Samuel held that the essential meaning of the name "Ahasuerus" indicates what is written in this Megillah, for there is no doubt that what is written in this Megillah is a very great matter, and it is fitting that the name should reflect this. Therefore he said that the faces of Israel were blackened through fasting and affliction, and this is the essence of the Megillah, in which the greatness of the trouble that befell Israel is recounted. And Rabbi Chanina held that the name ought to indicate whether he is righteous or wicked, and it is fitting that the name reflect this matter. Therefore he expounded that he was called "Ahasuerus" [as though] everyone says "woe to his head," for he was utterly wicked. And Rabbi Yochanan held that the essential meaning of the name reflects the conduct of his kingship, how he dealt with people. And regarding this he said that the conduct of his kingship was such that everyone became impoverished in his days, because he imposed tributes upon them, as it is written (Esther 10:1), "And he laid a tribute upon the land," and therefore everyone became impoverished in his days. And so Rav Saadiah Gaon wrote in the book of Daniel concerning the beast that Daniel saw, of which it says (Daniel 7:5), "Devour much flesh." If so, this name — that everyone became impoverished — is the essence of the kingship of Ahasuerus. And further understand: according to Rav's view, he was "brother of the Head," which is Nebuchadnezzar. And Samuel said that he blackened the faces of Israel through fasting and affliction, and this is a loss of humanity, and in this he was corrupt, and therefore he was called "Ahasuerus." And Rabbi Chanina said that he had no right to existence at all, and therefore they said "woe to his head" — for the head is the essence of existence, and everyone says "woe to his head," meaning that he had no right to existence at all. And Rabbi Yochanan said that everyone became impoverished in his days — this is a fourth matter, that he brought poverty upon people. And accordingly he was flawed on every side, as you will understand. We have explained to you the words of these sages, who found in the name "Ahasuerus" an extraordinary matter — how he was defective on every side. And furthermore, these matters that they came to explain regarding the name "Ahasuerus" are very deep, for the name indicates four things, which are all the dimensions that existed in Ahasuerus, and there is nothing more to explain. It appears that these sages were compelled to interpret the name "Ahasuerus" because of a difficulty: it should have written, "And it came to pass in the days of King Ahasuerus," yet it does not mention him with the title "king." Therefore they expounded (Megillah 11a) that the name "Ahasuerus" indicates his essential nature, that he departs from the order that is proper — for all the things hinted at in the name "Ahasuerus" indicate deviation. If so, this name is his disgrace, and therefore the title "king," which is a title of honor, could not be mentioned alongside it. And furthermore, the very event that this Megillah concerns — what happened to Israel — was itself a deviant matter, for it is not fitting for a king to hand over an entire nation to be destroyed and killed; it is a thing contrary to reason, as Esther said (below 7:4), "Had we been sold for bondmen and bondwomen, etc." Regarding this it says "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus" — meaning, the event of the Megillah, in which everything departed from the proper order, was fitting to occur under "Ahasuerus," who himself departed from the proper order, as his name indicates. And it was not appropriate to mention "king," for the king represents order, and orders everything. "This is Ahasuerus" (Esther 1:1). According to its plain sense, this means "this is [that] Ahasuerus," because there was another king among the kings of Persia and Media also called "Ahasuerus," and therefore it is written (ibid.), "This is Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethiopia" [to specify which one]. But our Sages of blessed memory (Megillah 11a) expounded "this is Ahasuerus" [to mean]: he was, in his wickedness, the same from beginning to end. And the intent is that everything good that Ahasuerus did for Esther (below 5:2), for Mordechai (below 6:10), and for Israel (below 8:8) — all of it was from Hashem, who brought this about, for he himself was wicked from beginning to end. And this matter is mentioned at the beginning of the Megillah in order to make known that everything that happened in the Megillah was from Hashem, for he himself was wicked from his beginning to his end. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 1:2): "This is Ahasuerus" (Esther 1:1) — five [instances of "this is"] for evil and five for good. Five for evil: "This one began to be a mighty hunter" (Genesis 10:9), "This is Esau, the father of Edom" (Genesis 36:43), "This is Dathan and Abiram" (Numbers 26:9), "This is King Ahaz" (II Chronicles 28:22), "This is Ahasuerus." Five for good: "Abram, this is Abraham" (I Chronicles 1:27), "This is Moses and Aaron" (Exodus 6:27), "This is Aaron and Moses" (ibid. v. 26), "And David, this is the youngest" (I Samuel 17:14), "This is Hezekiah" (II Chronicles 32:12), "This is Ezra who went up from Babylon" (Ezra 7:6). Rabbi Berechiah said in the name of the Rabbis: we have one [instance] that is better than all of them — "This is Hashem our God; His judgments are in all the earth" (Psalms 105:7) — for the attribute of His mercy is in the world. And the explanation of this is that these were unique in the world, whether in righteousness or in wickedness. And therefore they were five, for the letter heh indicates definiteness, and is therefore called "the heh of definiteness." Therefore, those who are singular and known/recognized, whether in wickedness or in righteousness, numbered five. And it appears that the reason the heh is specifically the heh of definiteness is because Hashem created His world with a heh, and through the heh everything became revealed and existent, for the whole world came into existence and was revealed through the heh. Therefore the heh renders every matter revealed and known, and it is the heh of definiteness. And so it is likewise fitting that those who were known, distinguished, and recognized in righteousness should number five: for Abraham was unique in righteousness, for he was the first to recognize his Creator, and before him people did not recognize their Creator. And likewise "this is Moses and Aaron" (Exodus 6:27) — Moses was unique, as is known, for (Deuteronomy 34:10), "there has not arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses again." And David was unique, in that kingship was fitting for him. "This is Hezekiah" (II Chronicles 32:12), because he sought Hashem, for those before him did not hold fast to the Torah of Hashem, and he held fast to the Torah after they had nullified the Torah and its commandments; therefore he was called "Yechizkiyah" [related to "strengthening"], for he strengthened his hold on the Torah of Hashem. "This is Ezra who went up from Babylon" (Ezra 7:6) — even though King Hezekiah held fast to the Torah of Hashem after they had turned away from Hashem, nevertheless they had not turned away completely. But when they were exiled among the nations, and there was nullification of many commandments, Ezra brought them up to the Land of Israel (Ezra 7:7), until they returned to their place to be as they had been before in the Land of Israel. Therefore our Sages of blessed memory said (Sanhedrin 21b) that Ezra deserved to have the Torah given through him, had not Moses our Teacher, peace be upon him, preceded him. As it is written (Ezra 7:6), "This is Ezra who went up from Babylon," and it is written (Exodus 19:3), "And Moses went up to God." And it is written (Ezra 7:6), "And he was a scribe skilled in the Torah of Moses which Hashem, the God of Israel, had given." Therefore these were unique. And there were five that were their opposite, being for evil, for the knowledge of opposites is one [i.e., belongs to a single mode of understanding]. And just as there are five who are unique in the world for good, so there are five that are their opposite, being for evil. And even though there are more than these five regarding whom the word "this" is written, nevertheless five are singled out for evil: for "this one began to be a mighty hunter before Hashem" (Genesis 10:8) — behold, he is mentioned negatively, and it is written of him "this," indicating that he is unique in evil. And likewise "this is Esau, the father of Edom" (Genesis 36:43), who is mentioned negatively in several places, and it is written of him "this," indicating that he is unique in wickedness. And likewise Dathan and Abiram, and likewise King Ahaz, and likewise Ahasuerus — of all of them their deeds are recounted in Scripture, and it is written "this," and therefore we expound that they are unique in wickedness. But in the other places where "this" is also written of them, no evil is mentioned of them explicitly in Scripture, and therefore the word "this" implies nothing [either way]. And likewise, of those regarding whom "this" is written for good, good is recounted of them, and it is written of them "this" — regarding these we expound for good, that it indicates the good in which they were unique and which is stated explicitly of them. "Who reigned from India to Ethiopia" (Esther 1:1). According to the plain sense it should have said "who had reigned from India to Ethiopia," not the present-tense form, which implies that he reigns now. Therefore they explained in the Gemara (Megillah 11a): "who reigned by his own [doing]" [i.e., he made himself king]. And Scripture comes to say that when a king is the son of a king, then there is no deviation here. And when there was no deviation in the order, no other deviation would come about through him either — such calamity as this, which is a deviation from the order of the world, to destroy and annihilate an entire nation. But since there was a deviation here, in that he reigned by his own [doing], and this is certainly a deviation, and every deviation brings about another deviation as well — therefore in his days the episode of Haman came about anew, which was an utterly deviant matter. And furthermore, the episode of Vashti, whom the king killed (Rashi, below v. 19), and likewise the hanging of Haman (below 7:10) — all of this was deviation. And it all followed from the fact that the very essence of his kingship was also of the manner of deviation, for he was a new king who was not of royal lineage, and this indicates deviation. And for this very same reason they also expounded the name "Ahasuerus" — that his own [essential] name indicates deviation, as has been explained. And likewise what they said in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 1:1), "This is Ahasuerus" — Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nechemiah: one said, this is Ahasuerus who killed his wife on account of his friend, and killed his friend on account of his wife. And the other said, this is Ahasuerus who halted the work of the Temple, [and] this is Ahasuerus who decreed to build the Temple. And all this indicates that everything about him was characterized by deviation from other people. And this comes to teach concerning what is mentioned in this Megillah — that such a decree was issued against Israel — and this matter is very strange, for Israel is the holy nation, that such a decree from the king should be issued against them, even though it did not come to pass. Therefore he says that no proof can be brought from this, since everything about this king was characterized by deviation. And in the Gemara (Megillah 11a) [regarding the fact] that he reigned by his own [doing] — some say it is for praise, and some say it is for disparagement. Those who say it is for praise [hold] that there was no one who was considered worthy of the kingship as he was. And according to the one who says it is for disparagement, [it means] that he gave excessive money [to obtain the throne]. And according to the one who says it is for praise, Scripture does not come to speak of the merit of the wicked; rather, because it said that he reigned over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, Scripture explains that this was because he was very important, for indeed he reigned by his own [doing], and therefore he reigned from India to Ethiopia. For the word "who reigned" is attached to "from India to Ethiopia," which speaks of the strength and greatness of his kingship. And according to the one who says it is for disparagement, the word is attached to "this is Ahasuerus," which speaks of his disgrace. The general point is this: since this matter came forth from Ahasuerus — to destroy Israel from the world — even though the decree was not carried out, it is impossible to say anything other than that this king was an utterly aberrant person, and for this reason no proof at all can be brought from him. Therefore they expounded that his entire nature indicates aberration — also, that there was no stability or foundation to his actions, and all his deeds were disorderly, for he killed his wife on account of his friend. And one cannot say that he was simply more inclined to follow his friend, for he also killed his friend on account of his wife! So he was a fickle king, and there was no stable foundation in any of his affairs or deeds. Therefore the decree to kill and destroy Israel also came from him — a thing that has no permanence or foundation. And all this is hinted at in the phrase "this is Ahasuerus," which indicates that he departed from the order of other kings, and also from that of other people. "From India to Ethiopia, seven and twenty and a hundred provinces" (Esther 1:1). It would only have been necessary to say "from India to Ethiopia" — why was it necessary to write "a hundred and twenty-seven provinces"? Rather, it comes to say that he reigned equally over all the kingdoms, over the far ones as over the near ones, and therefore it wrote "seven and twenty and a hundred provinces," which are individual kingdoms, and included them all in one totality. Had it written only "from India to Ethiopia," this would not indicate the significance of his kingship — even though his kingship was over the entire world, this alone is not significant kingship. But by saying "seven and twenty and a hundred provinces," it means to say that each and every province had its own distinct kingship, such that every province was a kingdom in its own right, and he reigned over all of these. And furthermore, if it had written only "seven and twenty and a hundred provinces," it would imply that each and every province was distinct in itself, without any connection between them, and this too would not be significant kingship — reigning over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces each divided from the other, with no province connected to another. But these hundred and twenty-seven provinces — each province in itself possessed the significance of a kingdom, and yet they were also joined together as though they were one kingdom. And this is a great significance — to reign over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, each of which had its own name/status as a kingdom, and yet withal they were joined together, and he reigned over them. "Seven and twenty and a hundred provinces" — it should have written "a hundred and twenty-seven provinces," mentioning the greater number first. And so it wrote regarding the years of the life of Sarah (Genesis 23:1), "a hundred and twenty-seven years." The explanation of this is that the number of years is not divided [into separate units]; all of it adds up to a single number, and therefore it combines the number first into the hundreds as much as possible. But the provinces are divided in themselves; there is no need to combine them into a large number, and therefore it says "seven" first. Furthermore, even if he were king over only seven provinces, he would still be a king; therefore it mentions the seven provinces first, and afterward the greater number. But regarding a person's lifespan, a person's life is not [simply] seven years, and therefore it was necessary to say "a hundred years and twenty, etc." [with the larger number first]. And furthermore, here it comes to say that he conquered the provinces, and with regard to the conquest of provinces, one begins with a small amount and then goes on adding; but the life of Sarah is the opposite — the larger number comes first, and then more is added, and the addition is not like the essential part. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 1:7): "Seven, twenty, and a hundred provinces" — Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nechemiah. Rabbi Yehudah said: he conquered seven [provinces] which were as difficult as twenty, [then] he conquered twenty which were as difficult as a hundred. Rabbi Nechemiah says: he took troops from seven and conquered twenty; he took troops from twenty and conquered a hundred. For it was difficult for them, as we have said, that it should have mentioned the larger number first, so why did it mention the smaller number first? Rather, this comes to teach a great matter: that Ahasuerus reigned over this entire lower world, and this lower world receives from the intermediate [world], and from the upper world. For there are three: lower, intermediate, and upper, and the lower [world] has within it something from all three. Therefore the inhabited world, which is the places within it, has within it a hundred and twenty-seven. And this is because the number one hundred corresponds to the upper world, which is the third world. This is because the number one hundred is the third rank: for the number of units is the first rank, the number ten is the second rank, and the number one hundred is the third rank; and for this reason the hundred corresponds to the third world, which is the upper world. And because the upper world has no division or separation within it, therefore the number one hundred corresponds to it, for the number one hundred is counted as though it were one, since the hundred is a single totality. And corresponding to the intermediate world is the number twenty, for the number twenty is the second rank, as we have said, since it belongs to the tens, which is the second rank. And the number twenty is two times ten, and this is fitting for the intermediate world, which has a second rank, unlike the upper world, which is one. And furthermore, the intermediate world is not counted as one, since it contains matter and form, and this is two things, yet they are like one thing. Therefore, corresponding to this is the number twenty, which is two times ten, yet nonetheless it is a single number, forming one totality. And after that, the number seven, and this number corresponds to the lower world. This is because this [lower] world is a world of multiplicity, and it is the opposite of the upper world, which is entirely one — as the number one hundred indicates of it, that the hundred forms a single totality. And so the upper world is a world with no division at all; rather it is entirely a single totality, and therefore the number one hundred corresponds to it. And the intermediate world, which contains some multiplicity, as we have explained, therefore corresponds to the number twenty, which is two times ten. But the lower world is a world of multiplicity and division, and therefore the number seven corresponds to it. And you will not find a number that indicates division and separation like the number seven, for wherever [Scripture] wishes to mention a multiplicity of parts it mentions seven, as in (Deuteronomy 28:7), "They will go out against you one way and flee before you seven ways" — meaning, they will flee in a multiplicity of ways. And likewise (Proverbs 24:16), "A righteous man falls seven times and rises" — meaning, he falls many times, and rises. And likewise (Isaiah 11:15), "He shall smite it into seven streams" — and so very many [other instances]. Therefore you will find that each and every one of these three numbers indicates a distinct world, as we have explained, and you should examine this very carefully. The general principle is this: the upper world has no division at all; the second world is the beginning of division, since it is composed of matter and form, and this is considered a composite; and the lower world has complete separation within it. And corresponding to these three are the hundred and the twenty and the seven, since this [lower] world receives from the three worlds, and therefore it has within it a hundred and twenty-seven provinces. And this is what Rabbi Yehudah said (Esther Rabbah 1:7): he conquered seven [provinces] that were as difficult as twenty, and he conquered twenty that were as difficult as a hundred. The point is that with regard to difficulty — that is, strength and stability — they are equal: just as this one stands firm, so the other stands firm. Therefore he said that he conquered seven which are as difficult as twenty, and conquered twenty which are as difficult as a hundred — and you should understand these words, for we have hinted at great matters. And for this reason it mentions first "seven and twenty and a hundred," because it begins with the lower world. But Rabbi Nechemiah said (ibid.) that he took troops from seven and conquered twenty, took troops from twenty and conquered a hundred. And his intent is also as we have said: that when he rose to this rank of conquering the seven provinces, whose strength is from the side of this lower world, he then rose higher to conquer the twenty, whose strength is from the side of the intermediate world; and when he rose to this rank and possessed this strength, he then rose further to the upper rank. And understand these matters well. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 1:8): Rabbi Akiva was sitting and expounding, and the students dozed off. He wished to rouse them, [so] he said: Why did Esther merit to reign over seven and twenty and a hundred provinces? Rather, this is what the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Let Esther, the daughter of Sarah, who lived seven and twenty and a hundred years (Genesis 23:1), come and reign over seven and twenty and a hundred provinces. The explanation of this is that it was fitting for Sarah to have this world as well as the World to Come — for although most righteous people do not have this world [in equal measure], nevertheless Sarah was suited even for this world, since she is called "Sarah," meaning she is a ruler over the whole world — just as Abraham is called [Avraham] on account of "father of a multitude" (Genesis 17:5), so she is called "Sarah," meaning she is ruler over the whole world. Therefore the life of Sarah corresponded to what is fitting for the world — the number one hundred twenty-seven. And you will find with Sarah what you will not find with the Matriarchs: Scripture does not mention the years of the lives of the [other] Matriarchs, only the years of the life of Sarah (Genesis 23:1). And this is because this world was fitting for her, since her name is called "Sarah," meaning she is ruler over the whole world; and for this reason it mentions the years of her life in this world, which corresponded to what is fitting for this world. And this is because this world receives from the intermediate world and from the upper world; therefore this world in its completeness is one hundred twenty-seven: the hundred [koof] is what this world receives from the upper world, and it also receives from the intermediate world, and to these the number one hundred twenty-seven pertains. Therefore Sarah, who is ruler over this world, was given by Hashem life in the world corresponding to what is fitting for the world. And do not err in thinking that this means a wicked man, such as Ahasuerus who was utterly wicked, has a share in the upper world. Rather, these provinces, which are in the lower world, receive from the upper world, as we have said. And Hashem gave Ahasuerus that he should be king in this world, and therefore these provinces came to him in this manner. And you should understand what it said (Esther Rabbah 1:8), "Let Esther, who was the daughter of Sarah, come and reign over seven and twenty and a hundred provinces": just as Sarah, to whom Hashem gave this world, merited to exist in this world according to what is fitting for this world, as we have said, so Esther merited to reign according to what is fitting for this world. Also, the meaning of "the daughter of Sarah" is to say that Esther has a lineage/connection to Sarah, in that a thread of kindness was drawn over her; Sarah was a prophetess and of beautiful form, and so too Esther. And you should understand this matter very well. And in the Gemara (Megillah 11a) they said, "seven and twenty and a hundred provinces" — Rav Chisda said: at first he reigned over seven, then over twenty, then over a hundred. This too is something they scrutinized — that the smaller number is mentioned first, unlike the case of Sarah, where the larger [number] is mentioned first — and therefore he said that at first he reigned over seven, etc. And this too, as we have said, is to make known that his kingship rose as high as possible. For this world contains something from the lower world, and it contains something of the matter of the intermediate world, and even from the upper world. And from this lower world it is fitting that he have the number seven; and from the intermediate world it is fitting to have the number twenty; and from the upper world it is fitting to have the number one hundred, as we have said. Therefore it says that he began by conquering what pertains to the lower world, which comes first, and afterward what is fitting from the side of the intermediate world, and afterward what is fitting from the side of the upper world. And behold, according to this, the Gemara and the Midrash are all one matter and one root, for one who understands. And the general principle in this is that Ahasuerus reigned over the entire world, and therefore his kingship corresponded to this lower world, which contains [something] from the upper world, and from the intermediate world, and from this lower world itself. And indeed the Midrash and the Gemara prove this explicitly. And it further said in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 1:7): "Seven and twenty and a hundred provinces" (Esther 1:1) — how did he conquer them? Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nechemiah. Rabbi Yehudah says: like half a crown — you conquer the outer [parts], and the inner [parts] are conquered of themselves. Rabbi Pinchas said: the world is made like a crown. And Rabbi Avin said: like the front of a tent. And Rabbi Nechemiah said: like a channel of water — you conquer the outer [parts], and the inner ones are conquered of themselves. These sages, too, came to resolve what is written (ibid.), "seven and twenty and a hundred provinces," when it should have said the larger number first. Therefore he said that the world is made like half a crown, which is like a half-circle, and so is the world — for the world is not inhabited on the southern side beyond the equator, and the world, which is like a sphere, is inhabited only in half of it, for beyond the equator the world is not inhabited; therefore only the half remains, and so the inhabited part is found to be like half a crown. And half a crown is narrow at the outer point, and goes on widening. Therefore it says "seven and twenty and a hundred provinces," beginning with the narrower [number]. And likewise, according to the one who says "like the front of a tent," the meaning of "kuva" is a tent, as it is written (Numbers 25:8), "into the tent [ha-kubbah]" — and the front of the tent is narrow, and goes on widening. And likewise, according to the one who says "like a channel of water" — at its beginning the channel is narrow, and goes on spreading further. And so the world: at its beginning it is narrow, and it goes on spreading. And when one conquers the outer [part], the inner parts are conquered [along with it]. And there is no substantive disagreement among these three opinions; each simply gives a reason why the world is narrow at its front and afterward widens. And it says that this is because it is made like a crown, which is round, and the inhabited part is like half a crown, for half a sphere has no habitation at all, as is known. And half a circle is narrow at its front and widens. According to the one who says it is like a "kuva," which is a tent, it is narrow at its front. And this reason is because this world resembles a tent, and every tent goes on widening, since the width is not so great near the entrance, and therefore the further one gets from the entrance, the more it widens. Therefore, with regard to the world, whatever is called "inward" goes on widening, and whatever is "outward" is narrow. And according to the one who says it is like a channel of water — meaning that a water channel goes on spreading over the ground, being narrow at first and then spreading — so too the world, which flows forth from Hashem, is narrow at its beginning and goes on spreading. And all of these come to resolve what it said, "seven and twenty and a hundred provinces." And according to all of them, this is because it mentioned here that he reigned over the entire world, and the world is one, and it has one beginning; and when one conquers the beginning, one thereby conquers everything. And they disagree only as to what it resembles: for one it resembles a crown, which has an outer part and an inner part, and by conquering the outer part, the inner part is conquered. For another it resembles a tent, which is narrow at its front and goes on widening, and when one conquers the narrow part, which is at the place of the entrance, the wide part is conquered. And for another it resembles a channel of water, which goes on spreading continually — for this world has one beginning, since it was created from Hashem, who is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), and afterward it goes on spreading further, and included within the thing that is the beginning is everything. Only each one comes to explain in what manner it was created from Hashem: for one, like half a crown, which has a beginning, and the surface goes on spreading; for another, like a tent, which is a structure, and is narrow at the point that is the front of the tent; and for another, the world was created from Hashem like a channel of water, which goes on spreading forth from Hashem. And these three things are matters of great wisdom. And it may be explained that there is no dispute here at all; rather, each one comes to add [something], and there is no disagreement in this. "From India to Ethiopia" (Esther 1:1). In the Gemara (Megillah 11a): Rav and Samuel — one said: India is at the beginning of the world, and Ethiopia is at the end of the world. And the other said: India and Ethiopia are situated next to each other; just as he reigned over India and Ethiopia, so he reigned over the entire world. You find similarly regarding (I Kings 5:4), "For he had dominion over all the region on this side of the river, from Tiphsah to Gaza" — Rav and Samuel: one said Tiphsah is at one end of the world, and Gaza is at the other end of the world. And the other said, Tiphsah and Gaza are situated next to each other; rather, just as he reigned over Tiphsah and Gaza, so he reigned over the entire world. And this is difficult: how can [the Gemara] say "just as," when this is not stated in the verse, and the verse could be explained according to its plain sense? One must say that, of necessity, this must be said, because since [the two places] are situated next to each other, one who reigns over two adjacent places is not [significantly] called a "king" [for this alone]. And furthermore, it is written (Esther 1:1) that he reigned over 127 provinces. Rather, of necessity, its meaning is "just as he reigns, etc." And shortly it will be explained how, according to both views, the phrase "from India to Ethiopia" implies that he reigned from one end of the world to the other; and likewise the phrase (I Kings 5:4), "from Tiphsah to Gaza." And if you should say that ultimately it is [still] difficult — why not simply write that he reigned from one end of the world to the other, and why does it speak in this manner? One can answer that there is a kind of king who reigns [effectively] over what is near to the seat of his kingship, but over what is far from his kingship he does not reign so fully, because the fear [of him] is not cast over them as it is over those he rules who are near to his kingship. Therefore it says: just as he reigned from India to Ethiopia, over two adjacent places, so too he reigned from one end of the world to the other. And one can further say that had it merely written "seven and twenty and a hundred provinces," one might have thought that this is simply what happened to occur — that he reigned over 127 provinces [as a matter of historical happenstance]. Therefore it wrote "just as he reigned, etc.," meaning that there is no difference between many and few, because he was king encompassing the entire kingship that exists in the world; and had there been more provinces in the world, he would have reigned over them too, since Hashem had granted him kingship over the world. And had it written that he reigned from one end of the world to the other, this would not imply that Hashem had granted him to reign over the entire world — only that this is simply how it happened, that he conquered the entire world. But from this expression, "just as, etc.," we know that Hashem granted him the kingship of the world, and therefore there is no difference between few and many. And likewise regarding Solomon it says (Megillah 11a) "just as he reigned from Tiphsah, etc.," meaning that there is no difference between near and far. And the one who holds "one is at the end of the world and the other at its end" — his view is that even though his kingship was such that he reigned over the whole world, what of it? — Scripture [nonetheless] mentions the distant places over which he reigned. And if you ask, let us see how these places are actually situated, and why do they disagree about this? One can explain that "situated next to each other," and what is meant by "one at the end of the world, etc.," is this: since the entire earth is spherical, one cannot say "from one end of the world to the other" except regarding two places that are very close together, where one is the beginning and the other is the end — such as India and Ethiopia, which are adjacent to each other. For if you circle the globe from India southward, and circle the entire globe until [you reach] Ethiopia, which is next to India, [then] it [India] is at one end of the world, and the other [Ethiopia] is at its [other] end. But if you circle from India northward and by way of Ethiopia, they are directly next to each other. And you should know that regarding the earth, which is like a complete sphere, one cannot say of it that one [place] is at its end and the other at its end, for such a thing does not apply to a sphere that is whole and is a single globe. Therefore one [Sage] held that it is fitting to say this: just as he reigned over part [of the world], so he reigned over all of it — for from part of the sphere the completion of the sphere follows, as is known. Therefore they explained: just as he reigned over these two adjacent places, situated on one circle, so he reigned over the entire world, which is the completion of the sphere, and the remainder is nothing but a completion, and one must complete the sphere once one begins to circle even a part of it. And the one who said "one is at the end of the world and the other at its end" holds that even though the sphere is spherical, and strictly speaking a spherical object has neither beginning nor end, nevertheless a beginning and an end apply once one designates one point on the sphere, from which the circling begins — this being the one extremity, and the completion of the circling being the other extremity. And this is what is meant by saying that the one is the one extremity, and the other the other extremity. But intrinsically, a sphere has neither beginning nor end. And do not find it difficult [to ask]: what do they actually disagree about, and what practical difference does it make — since, according to both the one who says "one is at the end of the world and the other at the end of the world," and the one who says "they are situated next to each other," according to both of their statements these two places are [effectively] together — so what is the dispute about? This is not difficult, for they disagree about the interpretation of the verse [i.e., how to read its actual language]: the one who holds "one is at the end of the world and the other at the end of the world" does not need to say "just as he reigned, etc.," for is "just as" written in the verse? Therefore he does not need to say this. And the one who says "they are situated next to each other" does not need to say "one is at the end of the world and the other at the end," for, as we have said, "from India [to Ethiopia]" implies that India is the beginning and Ethiopia is the end — but with a sphere there is no beginning or end here, since it is a complete circle, there being no beginning or end in it. Therefore one must explain: "just as he reigned from India to Ethiopia, so he reigned from one end of the world to the other." And understand these matters very well.

When King Achashveirosh had established himself, etc. When the kingdom was firmly established under his control. Our Rabbis, however, explained it differently in Maseches Megillah. — Notes: (9) I.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.” (10) 11b, 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.

"In those days" — [this comes] after he said 'in the days of Ahasuerus,' [which referred to] the beginning of the matters, for the first statement was general. And the meaning of 'when the king Ahasuerus sat [on his throne]' is that he was at rest from the wars against India and Cush, for he was a mighty warrior — and so it is written accordingly in the Megillah: 'in the third year of his reign.' "Shushan the castle" — the name of a palace (birah), as in 'for the palace is not for man' (1 Chronicles 29:1). And this palace was located within the province of Elam, as is written in the Book of Daniel (Daniel 8:2). And as you will find in this Megillah, Shushan is the name of a province near Elam, and most of the province [was inhabited by] Israel[ites], as I shall explain. Many have said that he made the feast because he calculated according to his own reckoning and saw that Israel would not be redeemed. And some say [it was] because he was at rest from wars, and some say [it was] because he had married Vashti — and this [latter view] is correct in my eyes.

The Questions: "In those days" is superfluous, since it already said "And it came to pass in the days of..."; also "the king Ahasuerus" is superfluous, since he was already mentioned in the previous verse, and it should have said "and it came to pass when he sat." Also the substance of the narrative itself — that he sat on the throne of his kingdom and that it was in Shushan — is unnecessary. "In those days" — now he relates how, immediately at the beginning of his reign, he grew so strong that he dared to change the royal throne, which until then had been in Babylon, and had it set up in Shushan, making Shushan the capital and royal city. By this he demonstrated: (a) his power — that he intended immediately to reign over an unlimited kingdom, to the point that he had no fear of the members of his kingdom rebelling against him over his changing the royal throne; (b) his greatness and pride — for behold, a commoner who ascends to royalty, his honor is to sit upon the throne of the earlier kings, not to sit upon a throne he made for himself, for by that his honor would be diminished; but he exalted himself so much that he established a new royal throne for himself, and likewise changed the capital city to be in Shushan — as if he had not been appointed over Babylon and the whole kingdom by their agreement and will, but had taken possession of them by his sword and his bow; and by this all were subdued and brought down under Shushan, which was his kingdom's [seat] in Persia. Moreover, he did not display this show of power only after he had held the kingdom for many days, but immediately, "in those days" — it already appeared like "the sitting of King Ahasuerus," as if he were a king by birth sitting upon his own ancestral throne, without needing the honor of the throne of the kings who preceded him.

"in those days" (Esther 1:2). This is difficult: since it is already written (verse 1) "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus" at the beginning of the Megillah, why then did it need to repeat and write "in those days, etc."? And the explanation is this: "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus" refers to the whole Megillah, meaning that what the Megillah speaks of took place in the time of Ahasuerus, namely the episode of Haman and Mordechai. And it was necessary to write additionally "in those days" regarding this particular episode — that the feast took place when the king sat on his royal throne in the third year of his reign. And even though it is already written (verse 3) "in the third year of his reign," it was still necessary to write also (verse 2) "in those days" — for otherwise the meaning would have been: "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, he who reigned from Hodu to Cush, in the third year of his reign he made a feast," and then "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus" would refer only to what is written, "in the third year of his reign he made a feast." And its meaning would be, "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus" — and at what time? — "in the third year of his reign." But that is not the meaning; rather "it came to pass" refers to the entire matter mentioned in this Megillah, that it was "in the days of Ahasuerus." And this is particularly fitting for everything mentioned in this Megillah, for he was named "Ahasuerus" [Achashverosh] because the faces of Israel were blackened (hushcheru) through fasting and affliction, and likewise for several other things about which it is said "it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus." And as to why it needed to say "when King Ahasuerus sat," when it is already written "in the third year of his reign" — regarding this they said in the Gemara (Megillah 11b): "when King Ahasuerus sat" — after his mind had settled that he was king, and that he sat on the royal throne, and no one opposed his kingship. And this was in the third year of his reign, for then he reckoned that he was king over the whole world, since Israel had no kingship — for as long as Israel has kingship, the nations have no kingship. And now, when he reckoned that kingship had departed from Israel, his kingship was complete. And so they said there (Megillah 11b): Rava said, what is meant by "sat" [ke-shevet]? After his mind had settled. He said: Belshazzar calculated and erred; I will calculate and not err. And the explanation of this is: since Ahasuerus reigned over the whole world, and by rights the kingship that is in the world belongs to Israel — therefore as long as they were anticipating the redemption of Israel, this was a nullification of the kingship of the nations, until he reckoned that the time when Israel should have been redeemed had already passed, and they were not redeemed, and then he reckoned that they would never be redeemed. Therefore it is written "when the king sat" — now his mind settled regarding the kingship in which he sat upon his royal throne. And even if you say that this wicked man surely did not believe in the prophecy of the prophet who prophesied concerning the redemption of Israel — nonetheless, his mind was now settled, whereas before this his mind was not settled, since according to the reckoning it was still possible that they would be redeemed. So the Sages, of blessed memory, explained it. And if this were not so, why did he wait to make the feast until the third year? And even though the plain meaning is that until the third year he had wars, and was constantly conquering, and did not sit upon his royal throne in tranquility until the third year — nonetheless it is difficult: why did it need to write "when the king sat," since it is already written (verse 3) "in the third year of his reign"? If so, "when the king sat, etc." would not have needed to be written, being superfluous — what does it come to teach us? Rather, until the third year there remained a possibility that Israel might yet be redeemed, and until that time had passed his mind was not settled about it. And even if you say that he did not believe in the redemption of Israel, nonetheless his mind was not so fully settled. And therefore it is written (verse 3) "bi-shnat shalosh le-malko" ["in the third year of his reign," literally "of his reigning"], and it is not written "bi-shnat shalosh le-malkhuto" ["of his kingship"], as is said regarding Esther (below 2:16) "bi-shnat sheva le-malkhuto" ["in the seventh year of his reign," literally "of his kingship"]. For the meaning of "le-malko" is that he reckoned that now he had the ability and the power to reign — this is what is meant by "le-malko." But regarding Esther, where he was already established/confirmed in his kingship, it is written "le-malkhuto." And this teaches us that this whole feast was because he reckoned that Israel would not be redeemed, and therefore his whole feast was to anger Hashem, as has been explained. And therefore the incident of Vashti occurred at this feast, since the main purpose of his feast was to magnify the dominion of the nations, which stands against the dominion of Israel, who serve Hashem. And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther, 1046) it is explained: when the wicked Nebuchadnezzar rose, he destroyed the Temple, and exiled Zedekiah, and removed the throne that Solomon had made. And when Darius reigned and destroyed Babylon, he took the throne and brought it to Media, but did not sit upon it. And when Ahasuerus reigned, he sent and brought sages from Egypt to make one like it, but they could not, so he made another throne for himself. Therefore it says, "when King Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom." The explanation of this is: Solomon reigned over the whole world, and more than that, he reigned even over the upper worlds, as it is written (I Chronicles 29:23) "And Solomon sat on the throne of Hashem." Therefore his kingship required a special throne, and therefore Scripture explains the matter of Solomon's throne (ibid.), because his kingship was great, and no throne of any other kingdom was fitting for it. Even though Ahasuerus, too, reigned from one end of the world to the other (Megillah 11a), nonetheless Solomon's kingship was a different kind of kingship, for his was the kingship of Israel, which is a kingship of holiness, and to him it was fitting to sit upon a holy throne such as this. Therefore Ahasuerus could not sit upon it, and therefore he had to make another throne. And this continued until the third year of his reign, since he was constantly thinking he would find sages who could make one like Solomon's throne, and they could not, so he made another throne for himself — and this continued until the third year of his reign. And therefore it is written "when King Ahasuerus sat, in the third year of his reign," because until the third year he was occupied with preparing the throne, and Ahasuerus had no rest or tranquility until the third year, since he reigned from one end of the world to the other and sought to have dominion like the dominion that Solomon had, and this did not succeed for him, because that dominion was not fitting for him, since Solomon's kingship was a holy, divine kingship. And what they said, that "he brought sages from Egypt" — this means that Egypt is the place of the necromancer-sages (chartumim), for he reckoned that through them he would be able to sit upon a throne like Solomon's throne, but it did not succeed for him, because a throne like this belongs only to Solomon's kingship, which was in holiness. And this Midrash is close to the plain meaning, except that it comes to give a reason why he did not sit on his royal throne immediately, and explains that this was because he sought to sit on Solomon's throne, as has been explained. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 1:10-11): "in those days" — this is one of the places where the ministering angels brought notes/petitions before the Holy One, blessed be He. They would say: Master of the world, the Temple is destroyed, and this wicked man is making feasts! He said to them: Give "days" corresponding to "days" — this is what is written (Nehemiah 13:15) "In those days I saw in Judah men treading winepresses on the Sabbath." Rabbi Chelbo said: Would that those days had never been. Rav Beivai said: Woe [hah] to those days. Rabbi Yitzchak said: Lament [nehi] for those days. "When the king sat" — Rabbi Yitzchak said: it is not written here "be-shevet ha-melekh" ["in the sitting of the king"], but rather "ke-shevet" ["as/like the sitting"] — the nations of the world have no [true] sitting/dwelling, for their sitting is not [truly] a sitting. The explanation of the Midrash: it is written this way (Esther 1:2) "in those days," after it is already written (verse 1) "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus," because Scripture comes to say: since Ahasuerus made this great feast and great rejoicing — how could Hashem allow this wicked man to do this, as if the time were fitting for it? But the time was not fitting for it in itself, for the Temple was destroyed, and the time was not fitting for such great rejoicing, and Hashem would not have allowed this wicked man to do something that profanes His honor — except that this sin caused it, as it is written (Nehemiah 13:15) "In those days I saw them treading winepresses on the Sabbath." This was because Israel had no cessation and rest, since they were not keeping the Sabbath; and since they were not keeping the Sabbath, the cessation and rest went instead to the nations, to make feast and drink. And one may learn that this thing was the cause of his making the feast, for it is written here "in the days," and it is written there "in those days I saw them treading winepresses on the Sabbath." This means that the Sabbath is a cessation for Israel, and when Israel has the cessation, then the nations have no cessation; and when Israel has no cessation, the nations have the cessation. And according to Rabbi Chelbo, it is written "in those days" because Scripture means to say that it would have been better had those days never existed at all, and it would have been good for the world had they not existed — for the nations were exalting and aggrandizing themselves because the Temple was destroyed, and they were making feasts. Therefore, "would that those days had never been." And Rav Beivai said "woe to those days," because the days of the rejoicing of the wicked are "woe" in the world, for there is no doubt that when the time is such that the wicked prosper in this world, that time is not prepared for good, since the time is [instead] prepared for the success and benefit of the wicked. And Rabbi Yitzchak expounded "lament" for the world for all time, since when the wicked sit in tranquility, the wicked devise evil thoughts against people. And Rabbi Yitzchak said that therefore it is written "ke-shevet" and not written "be-shevet," because the nations of the world have no [true] sitting/dwelling in this world. And this is because the nations are not the essential thing (ikkar) in the world, and they are dependent on something else, for the nations were not created for themselves, but only for the sake of something else. Therefore they have no [true] sitting, for "sitting" implies something that is essential and not dependent on something else, and to such a thing "sitting" applies; but something that is not essential, and is dependent on something else, "sitting" is not said of it. And therefore the nations, who are not essential in the world, and are subordinate to Israel, are considered [as though] Israel is sitting, and the nations are dependent upon Israel — for whatever is essential is planted in its place and is called "sitting" [yoshev], and it carries that which is not essential and is attached to it. Therefore it is written "ke-shevet" and not "be-shevet," for there is no complete/true sitting here. Had it written "be-shevet," one might have supposed that the nations too have [true] sitting, that they too are essential in the world. Therefore it did not write "be-shevet," but rather "ke-shevet," because there is no complete/true sitting here, only something like sitting, and it is not [true] sitting. And all of these [Sages] came to settle the wording "ke-shevet" as it is written — consider this carefully. "in the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the army of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him" (Esther 1:3). And the explanation of the verse is that he made a feast for the princes who are with him always, for it is not fitting for a king to be alone. "And his servants" means those who serve him, and they are the men of his war. And this is what is meant by "the army of Persia and Media" — that is, they are men of the army, men of war, of Persia and Media, and these who are called "his servants" serve him whenever the king decrees upon them for his war. And afterward it says "the nobles and princes of the provinces," who are princes in the province, and these dwell in the province, and now they came to be at his feast; and "before him" refers only to "the nobles and princes of the provinces," who came now before him. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 1:20): Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman [disagree]. Rabbi Eliezer says: this is like an "arkhi de-gadad" [a tribunal], where the king sits in judgment above, and all the people are before him on the ground. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman [says]: [it is] like a great basilica [beslakei], where the king sits at the banquet, and all the people are prostrate on their faces — here ends [the citation]. This Midrash was troubled by what is written, "the nobles and princes of the provinces, before him" — why do I need "before him"? And therefore it expounds that the king is exalted over the people, and he sits on his royal throne, and all the people are before him on the ground. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman explains that he is like a king who sits at a banquet, and all the people are prostrate on their faces out of fear of the king. And the difference between them: according to Rabbi Eliezer, the importance of the king consists in his being exalted over the people, and this is essential to a king. Therefore he said that all the people were sitting before him, and the king was additionally exalted over them, and this is the importance of his kingship — that he is exalted over them. And according to Rabbi Shmuel, this matter [rather] concerns the importance imposed upon the people, that the fear of the king should be upon them, to the point that they are prostrate on their faces; and the king himself does not display importance and greatness in himself, but rather is [simply] at the banquet, while the rest of the people are prostrate on their faces from fear. The general point: according to one, the importance of his kingship lies in his being exalted over them; and according to the other, the importance of his kingship lies in their being completely beneath him, humbling themselves before him out of fear of him — and this is the essence of his kingship. And this is a wondrous matter. And one may also explain that even according to this Midrash, "before him" refers to "and the nobles and princes of the provinces, before him," but regarding "his princes and his servants" it did not need to say "before him." This is because those princes who are his advisors are with him always; and likewise his servants, because they are his servants, and his kingship is over them. Only regarding the nobles and princes of the provinces does it write "before him," because to them it was necessary to show that his kingship is over them; therefore it says regarding them "before him." "when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom" (verse 4). And the explanation of this is that at this feast he was displaying the honor of his wealth, in that he was showing the expenditure he had made at this feast. And therefore it says "the honor of his wealth," because the wealth that is deposited in his treasury is no honor to him. And therefore they called him (Sanhedrin 29b) "akhbera de-shakhiv a-dinarei" ["a mouse lying upon coins"] — one who deposits his wealth in his treasury. And they called him "a mouse lying upon coins," because there is nothing as repulsive as the mouse, and so too is repulsive one who gathers wealth and does not use it for expenditure. And the reason it is repulsive to gather wealth into one's treasury is that the essential [point] of wealth is the honor that is in wealth, and honor exists only with respect to others, not with respect to oneself; therefore there is no honor when the wealth sits in the treasury. On the contrary, it is repulsive, since it is the opposite of honor when one does not bring the wealth out to others, and that which is the opposite of honor is certainly repulsive. And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, part 2, 1046): from where did he get this [wealth]? Nebuchadnezzar was begrudging/envious [tzar ayin], and when he was approaching death he said: I will not leave all my wealth behind me, lest another be honored through my wealth. He made a ship of copper, and hid it in the ground, and turned the waters of the Euphrates over it. And when Cyrus sought to build the Temple, it was revealed to him, as it is said (Isaiah 45:3) "And I will give you the treasures of darkness" — here ends [the citation]. And the explanation of this Midrash: Nebuchadnezzar was fitting to have the wealth, for he is called (Daniel 2:38) "You are the head of gold," and the wealth was fitting for him by virtue of the very essence of his kingship, since he is one of the four kingdoms (Daniel 7:4), and he is the first of the four kingdoms, as it says of him "You are the head of gold." And therefore this kingdom was fitting to bring wealth into the world. Only, just as this kingdom is suited to wealth, so is it prone to the evil eye. And therefore his wealth did not remain in the world, because of the evil eye that was attached to this kingdom, and it was lost from the world. And it says that he hid it in the ground, and turned the waters of the Euphrates over it — meaning that it should be completely hidden and concealed from the world. And when Cyrus built the Temple, he found the wealth. This means that since Cyrus was building the Temple (Ezra chapter 1), which is a hidden and concealed thing, therefore Hashem revealed to him the hidden matters as well, namely the treasures of wealth, which had been hidden because of the evil eye, and he found the wealth through [building] the Temple, and therefore this supernal blessing came to Cyrus. The general point: the wealth, which is a good thing and a blessing, was not fitting to belong to Ahasuerus, were it not that it had already been made ready for this wicked man Nebuchadnezzar, who was suited for wealth as we have said. And after his death the wealth was hidden away, and the wealth was not to be found in the kingdom. Only, since Cyrus was also suited for the revelation of the hidden, the wealth returned to its place for the sake of the Temple, and from it the wealth came to Ahasuerus. Understand this very well. And in the Gemara (Megillah 12a): "when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom, etc." — Rabbi Yosei bar Chanina said: this teaches that he wore the garments of the priesthood. It is written here (Esther 1:4) "the honour of his excellent majesty" [tiferet gedulato, "the splendor of his greatness"], and it is written there (Exodus 28:2) "And you shall make holy garments for Aaron, for splendor and for beauty" [tiferet] — just as there [the word tiferet] refers to the garments of the priesthood, so too here it refers to the garments of the priesthood. And the explanation of this is: Ahasuerus displayed the splendor of his greatness to such an extent that he thereby attained the preciousness of the honor of the High Priest, in that he wore the garments of the priesthood, and this is the precious splendor of a High Priest, for a priest who wears the garments of the priesthood has divine splendor. And so Ahasuerus wore precious splendor, to the point that he had divine splendor. For Ahasuerus was suited in particular to the honor of garments, since the garments that are upon a person are modesty and honor, in that a person covers himself with them, and Ahasuerus was especially suited to this attribute — as they said in the first chapter of Berakhot (8b): Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said, for three things do I love the Persians: they are modest in their eating, they are modest in the privy, and they are modest in another matter [i.e., marital relations] — here ends [the citation]. And Ahasuerus, who was king of Persia and Media (Esther 1:3), was fitting for this reason to have garments of honor, which are especially [an expression of] modesty, and a king is fitting for honor by virtue of being king. Therefore they said regarding "when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom" that he wore the garments of the priesthood, because the garments of the priesthood are divine honor, and so too Ahasuerus, when he wore garments of splendor, which were fitting and suited to him by virtue of modesty, which is a divine attribute. And so you find regarding Ahasuerus, as they said in the Gemara (Megillah 13a), that he was modest in [marital] relations, for Scripture says (below 2:14) "in the evening she went, and in the morning she returned," and he did not have relations during the day — that the wicked Ahasuerus had this attribute, namely modesty, which is honor. And what is implied from this Megillah about the great licentiousness of Ahasuerus will be explained further on. And therefore, when he came to show the splendor of the greatness of his kingdom, and this is his honor, they said (Megillah 12a) "that he wore the garments of the priesthood" — meaning that his honor reached the point that he wore divine honor, for the garments of the priesthood are divine honor. And with this is resolved the question of why Ahasuerus was not punished for wearing the garments of a priest. But the explanation is: when he did all the things that are described in the Megillah, he attained the preciousness and splendor of a High Priest, in that he had divine splendor. And so it is in Bereishit Rabbah: "Rabbi Levi said: he showed them the garments of the priesthood" — it does not say "that he wore the garments of the priesthood." But in the Gemara (Megillah 12a) it says "that he wore the garments of the priesthood," because the preciousness and splendor that he had is [there] called "wearing," and so it is in many places. However, from this there is not so much of a proof, since one could say that he was not [in fact] punished for wearing the garments of the priesthood, because one might say that Belshazzar was punished not [for that alone] but because he used vessels that belong to Hashem, and for this he was punished. And similarly, what they said, that Pharaoh was punished for sitting on Solomon's throne — this is because regarding Solomon it says (I Chronicles 29:23) "And Solomon sat on the throne of Hashem," and from this our Sages, of blessed memory, learned, in the first chapter of Megillah (11b), that Solomon reigned even over the upper worlds. And therefore Ahasuerus was not punished for wearing the garments of the priesthood, which are the garments of a High Priest, who is [merely] a man. And we will explain further on shortly. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 2:1): "when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom" — the academy of Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Chizkiyah, both of them, said: he would open and show them six nisin [treasuries] every day. And Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said: he showed them various kinds of exports/delicacies. Rabbi Yehuda beRabbi Simon said: he showed them a feast [in the manner] of the Land of Israel. Rabbi Levi said: he showed them the garments of the High Priesthood — it is said here (verse 4) "the splendor of his greatness," and it is said further on (Exodus 28:2) "And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for splendor and for beauty" — just as "splendor" [tiferet] stated further on refers to the garments of the High Priesthood, so too "splendor" stated here refers to the garments of the High Priesthood. And the explanation of this Midrash: it expounds on the six words "osher kevod malkhuto yekar tiferet gedulato" ["the riches of his glorious kingdom, and the honour of his excellent majesty"], and from this it derives that he opened for them six nisin [treasuries] every day, meaning six treasuries. And one may explain this: because the earth and its fullness belong to Hashem (Psalms 24:1), which was created in six days, and Hashem has six nisin, namely six treasuries full of every good thing, and from them He created the world in six days. And therefore he opened for them six nisin, meaning six treasuries — because the kingdom of earth is like the kingdom of heaven (Berakhot 58a), as will be explained. Moreover, this world has six treasuries, namely above, below, and the four directions, and from there the world receives blessing from Hashem, and therefore he opened six treasuries every day. And Rabbi Chama held that he showed them various kinds of exports/delicacies. The difference between Rabbi Chizkiyah and Rabbi Chama: according to Rabbi Chizkiyah, the essential [point] of wealth is that one has wealth in one's treasury, and he expounded "in showing the riches" to mean that he showed them treasuries of his abundant wealth. And Rabbi Chama holds that the essential [point] of wealth is not that one gathers wealth in one's treasury, for what advantage is there in wealth when one has silver and gold in abundance, and they lie before him like a silent stone? Rather, he said that the essential merit of wealth is when one expends it — not when the wealth lies in the treasury, but rather when one expends it in outlay, and this is the essential [point] of wealth. And he expounded "the riches of his glorious kingdom" [to mean] the honor that he has in expending the wealth, and this is the honor from the wealth, as we have said. And certainly the one who said that he showed them six nisin every day likewise holds that wealth is not the treasury itself; rather, he holds that if he had shown them only the exports/delicacies and not the six nisin, this would be only for the moment, with no permanent honor in it. Therefore he said that he showed them royal treasuries, from which a person can make a permanent outlay. Moreover, the reason he showed them six treasuries is to say that "it is the blessing of Hashem that enriches" (Proverbs 10:22), as you find with many righteous people who were blessed with wealth, and wealth of this kind cannot be considered of little account, since Hashem gave it to him. And so it appears to be the opinion of Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Chizkiyah, and this is correct. And according to Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon, he showed them a feast [in the manner] of the Land of Israel (Esther Rabbah 2:1). He means to say that even the various kinds of exports/delicacies are not fitting to be called "the honor of his wealth," for there is no honor in merely showing him various kinds of delicacies. Rather, "the honor of his wealth" is what he showed him in a feast [in the manner] of the Land of Israel, and this is "the riches of his glorious kingdom" — when he has a royal table that sustains everything, just as Scripture recounts the glory of Solomon's kingdom by recounting the matter of his table. And therefore it says "he showed them a feast [in the manner] of the Land of Israel," because specifically regarding the Land of Israel it is written (Deuteronomy 8:9) "you shalt not lack any thing in it," and it would be possible for him to have a royal table if he had the things that are in the feast of the Land of Israel, for there everything is found. And this is "the honor of his wealth" — when he has a royal table. And Rabbi Levi added that he showed them the garments of the priesthood. Because the essential merit of wealth is honor, as we said above, and as our Sages, of blessed memory, said in tractate Kiddushin (49b): "Who is rich? Anyone whose fellow townsmen honor him because of his wealth" — [we see] that the essential [point] of wealth is honor. And honor comes through garments of honor, as Rabbi Yochanan said: "All my days I have not called my garments anything but my honorers [mekhabdotai]." And therefore it says "that he showed them the garments of the priesthood," meaning that his honor reached such a degree that he wore the garments of the priesthood, which is divine honor, and thus Ahasuerus had divine honor. And this is "in his showing the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty" — and this is the divine honor. And this is what they said (Megillah 12a), that he wore the garments of the priesthood. And understand the words of each and every one [of the Sages] — there is no need to elaborate further.

The nobles. Governors, in the Persian language. — Notes: (11) Maseches Megillah 12a. Alternatively, people of royal descent. (Ibn Ezra)

"The nobles (partemim)" — [men] of royal lineage; and we do not know whether the word is Hebrew or Persian, for we find it nowhere except in the Book of Daniel and in the Megillah.

The Questions: No proper reason is known for what purpose he made this feast, and in particular why the writers of the Megillah elaborated on it in all its details. Also, the order of those invited is strange, for it mentions first the princes, the servants, and the army, and then returns to the nobles and the princes of the provinces — who certainly precede the servants, and are in general also considered princes. Also, the word "before him" is superfluous. Also, why here it says "his reign" [le-malko], while regarding the taking of Esther it says "his kingdom" [le-malchuto]. "In the... year" — in order to bring this desire of his from potential into actuality, that his kingdom be unlimited, he shrewdly arranged, in the third year of his reign — this being the reign over which he intended to rule with a strong hand, hence it says "his reign" [le-malko] — he made a feast, so that through this feast he might carry out the schemes of his heart. And immediately, in the order of those invited, he showed his ultimate intent: he placed first his princes, his servants, and the army of Persia and Media, and after them he seated the nobles and the princes of the provinces who had been princes there "before him" — meaning, before he conquered these kingdoms. By this he showed that he did not consider himself to have been appointed by their will and choice — for then the princes of the great provinces would certainly precede the princes of the small province over which he first reigned, and all the more so [precede] his servants and army — but rather he showed that he conquered them by his sword and his bow; and thus his princes, and even the army — who were the conquerors — preceded in rank and importance even the princes of the provinces, who were not considered princes except "before him" — before he conquered them, but now they are handed over, given, beneath him as lowly and debased servants.

[For] many days. He made a feast for them. — Notes: (12) I.e., “for many days” refers back to “the feast” [v. 3] and not to the exhibition of “the affluence and eminence of his kingdom.” [v. 4] (Sifsei Chachomim)

The Questions: For what purpose did he show his riches before many peoples? And why does it repeat "and the honor of his excellent majesty"? Also, "many days" is superfluous. "When he showed" — we have already prefaced that for a king who reigns over a limited kingdom, all the treasure and wealth found in the royal storehouses is not his own, but belongs to the state and the kingdom, and it is not for him to boast of it. Therefore, since he wished to establish dominion over an unlimited kingdom, he schemed to hold the royal treasury as his own, and displayed it before many peoples to boast of it like a man who boasts of his own monetary possessions. This is what is meant by "when he showed the riches of the glory of his kingdom" — as if this wealth were not the state's, but stood only for his own honor, through which he had succeeded in reigning. And since every king must have some wealth, but for a mighty king who rules a vast dominion, his treasuries must necessarily increase in proportion to his greatness — for this reason he showed them, in particular, "the honor of his excellent majesty." And this he did not do for one day or two days, but for "many days," until they reached a hundred and eighty days — by which he revealed his intent that he holds the royal treasury [as his own] and wishes to breach its bounds as though it were his own property and possession.

"many days, a hundred and eighty days" (verse 4) — It would not have been necessary to write "many days," since the number of days had already been stated. Rather, this is so that you should not say that they were not consecutive, but that the hundred and eighty days were scattered, and therefore it says "many days," to indicate that they were consecutive — for had they not been consecutive they would not be called "many days." This is how it is to be explained according to the plain sense. And furthermore it can be explained: because the verse comes to relate the feast of Ahasuerus and his rejoicing, and this matter is always called "many days" — for "many days" are [also] the days of distress, since ease and joy for the wicked are days of distress for the world, as is explained above, that the ease of the wicked is bad for the world, since through it they conceive evil thoughts against others, as we explained above in the introduction. And therefore it is written "many days, a hundred and eighty days." "a hundred and eighty days" (verse 4) — It appears [that the reason for] these "hundred and eighty days" [is] that the year is three hundred sixty-five days (Makkot 23b), and half of three hundred sixty-five is a hundred eighty-two days. Since he made the feast "in the court of the garden of the king's pavilion," and this suits the summer and not the days of rain, therefore the duration of Ahasuerus's feast was a hundred eighty days. For to make it a hundred eighty-two days would not be fitting, since the feast ought to be [made for] a whole/complete number [of days], for everything that was in this feast was without deficiency; therefore he made the feast a hundred eighty days. "and when these days were fulfilled, he made a feast of seven days in Shushan the capital" (verse 5) — And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 2:5): Rav and Shmuel — one said, seven days in addition to the hundred eighty days; and one said, these seven days are included within the hundred eighty days. The explanation of [the first view — that the seven days are in addition to the hundred eighty] is that he held the summer days to be a hundred eighty-two, and if these seven days are included within the hundred eighty days, then his feast was lacking two days of the summer days. Therefore his feasts were a hundred eighty days, plus another seven days in Shushan. Even though this meant that five days now fell within the winter, this is nevertheless more fitting than that two days of the summer days should be lacking, since the feast ought to span all the days of summer. And the one who said that these seven days were included within the hundred eighty days held that it is more fitting for two days to be lacking than for the feast to include five days within the winter days. For this authority, it is preferable that the feast be short by two days, rather than that there be a feast here in winter, for that is not [a proper] feast, and it is a distress. And for the other authority, it is preferable that none of the feast[-days] be lacking, even if it is not in [full] completeness. And know further, that their dispute here stems from this: the feast that he made for those far away was a hundred eighty days, which is like a whole year, since one may not make a feast in winter; and for those who were near, he made a feast of seven days. Thus, the feast that he made for his entire kingdom, which is vast, is a great year['s feast]; and the feast that he made for those who were in Shushan, which is not vast, is a single week, which is not vast. And [one authority] holds that these are two distinct matters: his being king over those who are near is one matter in itself, and his being king over those who are far is another matter in itself, for this is the greatness of his kingdom. And for the other authority, it is all one matter — rather, this [seven-day feast] is [only] the beginning of his reigning over those who are near, while his reigning over those who are far is the completion of his kingdom; and therefore it is all included within the hundred eighty days. However, what appears clear is that because Ahasuerus ruled over the whole world, his kingdom — which is an earthly kingdom (malkhuta de-ar'a) — is comparable to the kingdom of heaven (malkhuta de-rekia) (Berakhot 58a). And therefore the entire purpose of this feast was to make the earthly kingdom resemble the heavenly kingdom, as will be explained. And because he came to display the splendor of his kingdom, he decreed that it be made to resemble the heavenly kingdom, for He, blessed be He, who is King of the world, sustains His creatures — as is seen in the summer days, when the earth brings forth its fruits and the trees bring forth their fruit. And behold, they said (Berakhot 43b): one who goes out in the days of Nisan and sees the trees blossoming recites the blessing, "Blessed is He who has such things in His world." And this is clear: that in the summer days, when all things are renewed, this is the splendor of the King of the world. And because the summer days are a hundred eighty days, aside from the extra two [days], which need not be counted, as [explained] above — he also made seven days in Shushan the capital, where his royal throne was (verse 2), and this corresponds to the world that was created in the seven days of creation, in which He created sustenance for them, as it is written (Genesis 1:29), "Behold, I have given you every herb." Now there are two matters here. One is the sustenance for the generations of the world, by which He sustains them in the summer days by way of nature. The other is [the sustenance given] in the seven days of creation, whose sustenance is what Hashem, blessed be He, created for them not according to the order of nature — rather, Hashem, blessed be He, [Himself] created sustenance for them, as it is written (Genesis 1:11), "Let the earth put forth vegetation," etc. And these two — namely, what Hashem, blessed be He, arranged for them for the generations of the world according to the natural order, and also what Hashem, blessed be He, gave them Himself, not according to the natural order, but rather decreed for them directly — all of it is His glory, blessed be He. And corresponding to this, King Ahasuerus made feasts of a hundred eighty days, and another seven days for those who were near to him. Now [to explain] their dispute: for [one] authority, even the sustenance created in the seven days of creation is included within the hundred eighty days of summer, for even in the seven days of creation Hashem, blessed be He, created their sustenance; therefore the seven days that he made in Shushan are included within the hundred eighty days. And for the other, these seven days are the days of creation, and are not according to the custom of the world, whereas the hundred eighty days are according to the custom of the world. Therefore the seven days of creation stand by themselves, and the hundred eighty days, which follow the custom of the world, stand by themselves, and the two are unrelated to one another, each being independent. That is to say: in the days of creation [the world] was created by the utterance of the Holy One, blessed be He, and these [seven days] constitute its sustenance; and afterward the sustenance for the generations was separated off, [to proceed] by nature and according to the custom of the world, each one independent. Therefore these seven days are not included within the hundred eighty days. And because what was created in the days of creation was created from Hashem, blessed be He, Himself, these seven days are close to Hashem, blessed be He; and therefore he made the seven-day feast in Shushan, which is close to the king's throne, and where his royal throne was. And one should not object: why were these seven days last, when it would have been proper for them to be first? For according to the one who says (Megillah 12a) that he was a clever king, this is no difficulty at all, for he needed to act this way. Furthermore, that which is close to a person ought to be first. And because the hundred eighty days correspond to nature — for the workings of the world during these hundred eighty days follow the governance of the world by nature, and nature is close to man — therefore these hundred eighty days come first. And afterward come the seven days corresponding to the days of creation, in which the sustenance was created by Hashem, blessed be He, Himself, through His utterance, which is a higher level, close to Hashem, blessed be He; and therefore these seven days come last, and it was in Shushan, where the king resided. And now it fits well what is written (verse 10), "on the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry," and they said (Megillah 12b) that it was Shabbat. And it is fitting that the seventh day be Shabbat, in accordance with what we have said — that these [seven days] correspond to the seven days of creation. And one should further know that this — Ahasuerus's making a feast of a hundred eighty days, and also seven days in Shushan — was entirely similar to the kingdom of heaven. For Hashem, blessed be He, sustains the beings below, and what He sustains and nourishes the whole world with occurs in summer, when the earth brings forth plants, which are the sustenance of the world, as has been explained. Therefore he made a feast for them of a hundred eighty days, since the extra two [days] are not to be counted, as two is not a whole/complete number, and to make feasts for [a mere] two [days] is a deficient matter, unfitting for this occasion, which signifies the utter completeness of the kingdom. And he made another seven days in Shushan, for this corresponds to the [totality of the] world that was created in the seven days of creation — [all] the beings that were created in the seven days of creation, the Holy One, blessed be He, nourishes them. For even after they were created by Hashem, blessed be He, they require their continued existence from Hashem, blessed be He, and this continued existence is itself the nourishment, for sustenance and nourishment are nothing other than that He grants it continued existence. And in the first chapter of [tractate] Berakhot (10a): "Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, nourishes/sustains the whole world, so too the soul nourishes/sustains the whole body." And certainly, the soul's nourishing of the body means that the soul grants existence to the body; so too, Hashem's, blessed be He, nourishing the whole world means that He grants continued existence to the totality of the world. Therefore, corresponding to the beings below, to whom He, blessed be He, gives sustenance — and their sustenance, which He gives in the summer days, is their continued existence — this is [represented by] the hundred eighty days. And that which grants continued existence to the totality of the world created in the seven days of creation — Hashem, blessed be He, grants existence to everything — and therefore, corresponding to this, Ahasuerus made a feast of a hundred eighty days, and [also] seven days. And as for why he made the seven-day feast at the end: because the lower world, whose sustenance occurs in the summer days, is closer to man, who is [one] of the lower beings; but the continued existence that comes from Hashem, blessed be He, is not as close to man. Therefore the hundred eighty days come first, since it is impossible for the seven days to come first, for they concern His, blessed be He, granting continued existence to the world in general, from which they receive their existence — and this is not close to man; only His, blessed be He, [giving] sustenance to the lower beings is close to man, and therefore that comes first. And the seven days are for those who were in Shushan, since Shushan is the city of his kingdom, and this place is close to him, corresponding to the [aspect of the] world that is close to Hashem, blessed be He, [being] with Him — and in it is his royal throne, just as his [Ahasuerus's] royal throne was in Shushan. And they disagree (Esther Rabbah 2:5): for [one] authority, these seven [days] are included within the hundred eighty days, since the sustenance by which He maintains everything is also called sustenance; only that the lower beings need sustenance from things that grow and sprout, as has been explained. Therefore, just as the sustenance of the lower beings is [represented by] the hundred eighty, so too the sustenance of the whole world, even of the upper beings, is [represented by] His, blessed be He, maintaining what He created in the seven days of creation. For the one who says these are not included within the hundred eighty days, [it is] because their sustenance is distinct in itself, as has been explained. And had it not been that Ahasuerus's intention was to make feasts as the King of the world makes, there would have been no dispute among these Sages as to whether these seven days are included within the hundred eighty, or whether they stood independently. And according to the plain sense, it appears that the reason he first made the feast for those far away, and afterward for those who were in Shushan, is that had he not done so, it would have appeared to be a deficiency, since he would have begun by displaying his kingship [only] in what pertained to Shushan alone — and this would appear to be a deficiency of his kingship. But when he begins with those who are far away, this shows the greatness of his kingship. And even if he then makes [a feast] afterward for those who are in Shushan alone, this does not appear to be a deficiency of kingship, since his kingship over the whole world had already been demonstrated. And in the Gemara (Megillah 12a): "and when these days were fulfilled" (verse 5) — Rav and Shmuel: one said, he was a clever king; and one said, he was a foolish king. According to the one who says he was clever: he did well to draw the distant ones near first, since the people of his own province were [already] subdued to him, and whenever he wished he could draw them near [too]. And according to the one who says he was foolish: he should have drawn the people of his own province near first, for if these [distant] ones were to rebel against him, those [near] ones would remain [loyal to him]. Explanation: [one] authority holds that it is better that matters not come to the point of rebellion at all, and therefore, since he drew the distant ones near, it would not come to the point of their rebelling against his kingship, since he had [already] drawn them near. And the other authority holds it preferable to draw near the people of his own province, so that if it did come to rebellion, he would have the strength to defeat the rebels — for it is far-fetched to say that he could draw [the distant ones] so near that they would not rebel against him at all, since there is still cause to fear that it might come to rebellion. Therefore it is more fitting to draw near those who are close, and this itself is also a reason it would not come to rebellion, since the distant ones would see that he has supporters. And just as when he conquered a kingdom he would surely conquer the near ones first and then the distant ones, so too the endurance of the kingdom comes through the near ones, and afterward the distant ones. But it appears that the explanation is not that Ahasuerus feared that they would rebel against him, for this would be a disgrace to a king. Rather, when the Gemara (Megillah 12a) says he was a clever king, it means that, in view of the greatness of his kingship, the distant ones take precedence, since they demonstrate the true extent of his kingship — that it is very great — and therefore the distant ones take precedence. And this itself is the meaning of his being a clever king in drawing the distant ones near first: when the distant ones are under his kingship, he is thereby also king over the near ones. And the one who says he was a foolish king holds that although the distant ones take precedence in this respect — being the completeness and greatness of his kingship — nevertheless the near ones take precedence in this respect: that through the near ones, even the distant ones come under his kingship, whereas without this the distant ones would not be under his authority, [since] only through the near ones does his kingship extend over all. Therefore one should draw the near ones close first, and through this his kingship extends over all. And this is the meaning of "for if these [distant] ones were to rebel, those [near] ones would remain [loyal]" — meaning that he drew those [near ones] close so that they would remain with him, in order that he could also rule over the distant ones, and they would not rebel. And according to what we have said — that Ahasuerus made his feast to resemble the kingdom of heaven — one should not object: is this in fact found, that the kingdom of heaven draws the distant ones near first so that they will not rebel against it? For this is no difficulty, since in this matter he was not making his feast resemble the kingdom of heaven for its own sake; rather, since Ahasuerus needed this, he made his feast according to what he needed. And furthermore, even the kingdom of heaven acts this way, drawing the distant ones near. And in the Gemara, in the chapter Ein Dorshin (Chagigah 12b): "Now, since heaven is [described as] created first, why does it [Scripture] then recount the making of the earth [first]? It was taught: a parable of a king of flesh and blood who said to his servants, 'Rise early to my gate.' The next day he rose early and found men and women [waiting there]. Whom does he praise? The one whose custom it is not to rise early, and yet rose early" — thus far [the quotation]. Behold, this shows you that the distant one is praised when he accepts the king's rule. And so too Ahasuerus drew the distant ones near, so that they would not rebel against him. And so it is in the Midrash (see Yalkut Shimoni, Psalms 860): "Bless Hashem, His angels, mighty in strength" (Psalms 103:20) — these are the righteous who conquer their [evil] inclination, and therefore they are "mighty in strength." And afterward it is written, "Bless Hashem, all His hosts" (ibid. v. 21) — these are the angels. And it is written "Bless Hashem, His angels" first, and only then is it written "Bless Hashem, all His hosts." Behold, you find that Hashem, blessed be He, draws the distant ones near because they accept His decree, blessed be He. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 1:5): "u-vim'lot" [and when...were fulfilled] (verse 5) is written in the full [plene] spelling. This is to say that the last day was like the first day, and the last day was not lacking anything in comparison to the first day — unlike the way of men, who diminish from day to day; here the last day was like the first day, and therefore "u-vim'lo'ot" is written in the full spelling.

Of the garden. A place where vegetables are sown. Orchard. Where trees are planted.

"Who were present (ha-nimtza'im)" — a word that is grammatically irregular, for the tzadi ought by rule to have been vocalized with a large qamatz. And 'the people who were present' in the palace are his servants and the servants of his servants. "Biten" (pavilion) — derived from 'bayit' (house), and it is [both] in construct form and also determinate; and its sense is like 'within,' as in 'within and without' (mi-bayit u-mi-chutz). And it is an abbreviated expression: 'biten' [meaning] 'beit ha-melekh' (the house of the king).

"And when [these days] were fulfilled..." — Behold, our Rabbis, of blessed memory, state definitively in Midrash Chazit that the wicked Haman advised the king with schemes to cause Israel to sin, to make their smell foul in the eyes of Hashem their God, by inviting them to the king's table, to feed them and give them to drink from their royal delicacies (pat-bag) and the wine of their feasts, and to set harlots before them in order to cause them to stumble — saying, 'The God of these people hates lewdness.' And he said that '[the meaning of] all the people who were present' is a people saved by Hashem, and that therefore Israel became liable, Heaven forbid, to utter destruction, and that Haman himself gathered eighteen thousand and five hundred Jews, as they elaborated at length in the aforementioned Midrash. And I think there is support for this from the Masorah: that the word 'nobles' [partemim] occurs three times in Scripture — 'to bring some of the children of Israel, and of the royal seed, and some of the nobles'; the second, 'the nobles and the princes of the provinces before him'; the third, 'and let the apparel and the horse be given into the hand of one of the king's most noble officers.' And the matter would be: [that the officer sent] 'to bring some of the children of Israel,' etc., to the place of 'the nobles and the princes of the provinces before him' — that is, at the king's feast — who did this? Was it not the one of whom it is said, 'one of the king's most noble officers' — that is, Haman? And this holds true whether according to the opinion that it was all one feast, or according to the opinion that there were two feasts — and the more correct view is that there were two, for the second was to deceive Israel, as we have written. And this is [the meaning of] its saying, 'And when [these days] were fulfilled...' — to say: stand and consider the evil of this king's heart, for he devises iniquity against Israel. For behold, when these days of the first feast were completed, and the display of his wealth for one hundred eighty days [was over], what reason did he see to make the second feast for no cause? But this is nothing other than the sword of the counsel of Haman the Agagite, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said, as we have written. And this is [the meaning of] 'the king made' — which was not said regarding the first feast, which said only 'he made a feast' — rather, it is to say '[that] well-known king' whom we have mentioned, and said is Ahasuerus, standing firm in his rebellion, who had nullified the service of the House of our God. And this is [the meaning of] 'to all the people,' and it did not say 'to all who were present,' which would include every kind of people — rather, he intended what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said: to 'a people saved by Hashem.' And there is a further proof: that he invited from great to small, and this is not the way of a king, who [invites] only the great and the mighty, in whom he takes all his desire. And I think that this is why it says 'who were present,' and not 'to all the people who were in Shushan' — for he acted with cunning in order to punish Israel, so that they should not be regarded as having been coerced, for [otherwise] people would say that the king had forced them. Therefore he acted shrewdly and decreed only concerning those who were present in Shushan, but not concerning those who went out beyond the gates of the city, or concerning those who hid themselves there so as not to be seen and not to be found — and thus he acted, and he prevailed, for this is why Israel became liable, Heaven forbid, to utter destruction, according to the one who says [this]. And according to the opinion that says it was all one feast, we can say [the following], as to why above it said 'the army of Persia...' etc., while here it says 'to all the people who were present...' etc., and also why [the feast] is mentioned once before the account of the wealth, and once after it: the reason is that his main intent was to hold the feast in order to bring about peace between himself and the princes of the provinces, so that they would love him, so that they would be ashamed to rebel against him — except that he had to be careful lest his honor be diminished in their eyes through excessive familiarity in the drinking of wine. Therefore he began first by showing them his wealth, so that they would know that it was in his power to take revenge on those who rebelled against him. Therefore, since the feast was the main point, he put it first [in the telling], and said, 'he made a feast for all his princes and his servants' — for included in 'his servants' are all the people who were present in Shushan, for they are [included among] his servants, but [only] 'the army of Persia and Media, the nobles and the princes of the provinces' alone were 'before him' when he showed [them] his wealth, etc., for it was of them alone that he was afraid, and to them [alone] he showed the wealth, and not to all his other servants, which would also include all the people who were present. And this is the reason for the atnach [cantillation pause] on the word 'his servants' — for they were not all equal except in the matter of the feast; but in the showing of his wealth, it was only to 'the army... the nobles and the princes of the provinces.' And this is [the meaning of] 'the army... before him,' in his showing [them his wealth] — that these alone were 'before him' when he showed the glory of his wealth. And since the showing of his wealth was only to prevent a possible harm that might result from the feast — which was the main intent — he delayed it [in the telling], treating it, as it were, as secondary to the feast. And after he recounted what he showed, he returned to conclude [the account of] the time of the feast, which was 'when these days were fulfilled' — and he mentioned only those who joined merely to eat and drink and not to see the wealth, namely, 'all the people who were present,' etc. Though it cannot be denied that the principal ones among them were also the princes and nobles, in addition to this [group] — for here he mentioned only what pertains to us: that he gathered [them] together with the Children of Israel in order to distance them from their Father in Heaven, as stated just above, that they [Israel] were alluded to by its saying 'all the people who were present.'

The Questions: What was his intent in the second feast that he made, and the word "who were present" is superfluous? And why does it everywhere say "from small to great" — which comes to equate the small to the great — while here it says "from great to small" — which comes to equate the great to the small? And for what reason does it relate that it was in the court of the garden of the king's palace? Also, everything that is elaborated in verses 6, 7, and 8 — its purpose is unknown. "And when... were fulfilled" — he shrewdly arranged yet further: that at the end of the days of the feast that he made for the princes, he made a general feast for all the people of Shushan, to teach that small and great are equal in his eyes, for all of them are his servants, and none has superiority over his fellow. This is why it says "from great to small" — to equate the great to the small. And it says "to all the people who were present" — because, since he came from outside Shushan and set his throne in Shushan, he called together the people of Shushan who were present there. And he made this feast in the king's court, a place where, according to the customs of Persia, only the princes and nobles were permitted to enter — and he showed that the people and the multitude are not lesser in his eyes than the princes, since all of them are his servants; indeed, on the contrary, the people of Shushan, where the royal throne was set, deserve honor and glory equal to all the princes.

"in the court of the garden of the king's palace" (verse 5). Rav and Shmuel (Megillah 12a) [disagree]: one said, whoever was fit for the court [was seated] in the court, whoever was fit for the garden [was seated] in the garden, and whoever was fit for the palace [was seated] in the palace. And the other said: he seated them in the court, but it did not hold them; in the garden, and it did not hold them; until he brought them into the palace, and it held them. In a baraita it was taught: he seated them in the court and opened for them two doors, one to the garden and one to the palace. This too is puzzling — what practical difference does this make, and what exactly are they disputing about? But it seems that the dispute of these sages concerns matters that are very wondrous, namely, to say that the entire feast of that wicked man was [designed] so that the kingdom of earth would be entirely like the kingdom of heaven, as we have written. And it is known that Hashem, who reigns over His creatures, brought them into this world. And there is one who is not fit for the lowest level, and rises even higher. And there is one who rises still further, to stand in the upper world. And this is what is meant by "whoever was fit for the court, [was seated] in the court; whoever was fit for the garden, [was seated] in the garden; whoever was fit for the palace, [was seated] in the palace." And it is not relevant here that this would cause jealousy at the feast, for this had to be so, since they are divided in their levels, each one [placed] in the spot fitting for his level. And it is impossible for the place of all people to be equal in their levels, and therefore jealousy is not relevant here. Only if one sat on a wooden couch and another on a silver couch — that is jealousy (Megillah 12a) — but that everyone's place should be equal is impossible, for there are three levels, and each one merits his own level and has the place fitting for him, and neither jealousy nor hatred is relevant in this matter. And we have already said this above. And just as you find the courtyard before the Tabernacle (Exodus 27:9), and the Tent of Meeting (Exodus 26:33), and the Holy of Holies (ibid.), by this you see that the camp of the Divine Presence had three levels, one within the other. For not everyone merits the innermost, uppermost level, but rather each one according to his own level and standing. And according to the opinion that he seated them in the court and it did not hold them, etc. — this view holds that man himself, as a particular individual, is considered to stand at the lowest level, which is this lowly world. But from the aspect of the collective, they have a higher standing, such that the standing of the collective reaches all the way to the upper world, for the collective has a transcendent, divine standing. Therefore it says, "he brought them into the court, and it did not hold them" — insofar as this level is not fitting for the collective, in its capacity as collective. And "he brought them into the garden and it did not hold them" — this corresponds to the middle world, for the middle world does not have a fully transcendent level. Until he brought them into the palace, and it held them — for the third, innermost level is the transcendent world, and it holds everything. And you should further know that man is physical, and this is from the aspect of the lower, physical world. And he has within him the soul that was given to him from heaven, which man receives. And he has within him the transcendent intellect, and this is from the aspect of the upper, intellectual world — and there is no need to elaborate on this. Therefore it says that he seated them in the court and it did not hold them, for man has a further level, which is closer to the transcendent level. Therefore he seated them in the garden, which corresponds to the middle world. And it says that the garden still did not hold them, because man is intellectual, and therefore even the middle world does not hold him. And when he brought them into the palace, which is the upper world, it held them, for that is the world wholly transcendent from the physical, and it certainly held them. You should understand these matters very well. The general point is this: Ahasuerus made his feast so that the kingdom of earth would be like the kingdom of heaven. And therefore it says (Megillah 12a) that "he seated them in the court and it did not hold them, until he seated them in the palace" — for so does man ascend from this world, the bodily world, until he ascends to the upper, transcendent world. Understand this very well. And the Gemara says (Megillah 12a): "And in a baraita it was taught: he seated them in the court, and opened two doors, one to the garden and one to the palace" — until here. The baraita, too, states that the entire intent of Ahasuerus was that the kingdom of earth should be like the kingdom of heaven. And just as Hashem created man in the lower world, yet man has an open door to ascend to the upper world by being righteous, so too he seated them in the court, and opened for them one door to the garden and one to the palace — the court corresponding to the lower world, the garden to the middle world, and the palace to the upper world. And this hints that man has an open door before him, by which he can reach the upper world. And this is the meaning of the baraita, that he seated them in the court and opened for them two doors: for man stands in the lower world, in which he sits, yet he has a connection and a bond reaching to the upper world. And this indicates that it was open from one to the other. These matters are clear, and will be explained further. And there are those who said that Ahasuerus's feast was only seven days, and not one hundred and eighty days. And they explained that what is written in the Megillah (Esther 1:4), "when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honor of his excellent majesty, a hundred and eighty days," means that during those hundred and eighty days they were occupied with the preparations for his feast and with the building of the banquet house, and it was then that they were seeing his wealth; but the feast of eating and drinking was entirely equal for all. But this is not so, as is proven in the Gemara (Megillah 12a). And one cannot say that jealousy would be caused among them by his making a feast of seven days for these and a hundred and eighty days for those, for jealousy applies only where things are entirely equal; but where they are not equal, this does not apply — for what room is there for jealousy when people are inherently divided among themselves, seeing that everyone makes a distinction between those who are distant and those who are close? And as for what it says (verse 10), "on the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine" — this is difficult: why specifically this time was the king's heart merry with wine? And our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Megillah 12b), had to say that it was Sabbath. And we ask: but was there not a Sabbath among the hundred and eighty days as well? This is not difficult: even though during those [earlier] days the officers of the provinces were likewise not present at the feast — rather, he made these seven days separately for those who were in Shushan — nevertheless, these were the final days, and the joy was greater on these last seven days, and it was also Sabbath; and there is no need to elaborate on this.

[There were] pure white drapes, fine woolen cushions, bluish emerald techeiles wool. He spread out various types of colored fabrics for them as spreads. — Notes: (13) Maseches Megillah 12a. Brocaded with strands of linen and mauve, woolen argaman threads. Embroidered with threads of linen and purple; he spread these out for them on rods of silver and columns of marble. Gold and silver couches. He set [them] up to sit upon for the meal. On a floor. Floors of green and white, etc. Our Rabbis identified them as types of precious stones. According to the apparent meaning of the verse, these were their names. — Notes: (14) Ibid.

"Chur, karpas" — this verse is connected with [the verse] above, 'when he showed' (1:4), and the verse 'and when these days were fulfilled' (1:5) has been inserted between them — like 'Say to the lad ... and he passed on before us.' "Chur" — a color, and it is white, from the same root as 'the nobles (chorei) of Judah,' and so also in Aramaic. "Karpas" — a color similar to it [chur] in the Arabic language (Kedar); also 'techelet' (blue) is known [as such a color]. And these are colors in silk, and the proof is [the word] 'achuz' (fastened). "Be-chavlei" (with cords) — the chet is vocalized with a large patach; it is not like 'chevlei yoledah' (the pangs of a woman in labor). "Butz" (fine linen) — it is the finest linen (bad), from flax [grown] in Egypt; also 'argaman' (purple) is [a dye] in wool. "Gelilei" (rings) — like 'galgalei' (circlets/wheels), as I shall explain regarding the dwelling of Solomon. "And pillars of shesh" — like 'shayish' (marble), and similarly '`esh' and `Ayish' [the constellation, spelled with and without a yod] (Job 9:9; 38:32). Now the rings were between one pillar and another, and some of them were covered with the [fabrics] mentioned. "Ritzpah" (pavement) — like 'martzefet avanim' (a pavement of stones); and they are the flooring below. "Bahat" — also 'dar' and 'sochereth' are [names of] precious stones.

"White, cotton," etc. — the Rama of Fano (Rabbi Menachem Azariah), of blessed memory, wrote that his intent was to give pleasure to the four senses of every person: the sense of smell, since it was held in the courtyard of the garden of the king's pavilion, where roses and spikenard and the like would not be lacking there; the sense of sight, in "white, cotton," etc.; the sense of touch, with "beds of gold," etc.; the sense of taste, in "they ate delicacies and drank sweet things." And he gave a reason why he did not have songs of music, lyres, and the like heard, to give pleasure to the sense of hearing: because not every person finds the same thing pleasant — one person finds one kind of music pleasant and no other, and another is the reverse; and he wished to act according to the will of each and every person, therefore he withheld [all] kinds of music entirely. And I say that even the sense of smell was not gratified, for they were not in the pavilion itself, but only in the courtyard of the garden, which is outside it — this being the plain sense of the verse, according to the view of Rabbi Nechemiah in the Midrash: the garden was on the inside, and the courtyard outside it, paved with stones of bahat and shesh (marble and alabaster), etc. And the scent from what was rooted in the ground of the garden would not reach them there from such a distance, as is plainly evident to anyone who has seen the light of day — and all the more so, since those invited numbered thousands upon myriads, for from Israel alone there were eighteen thousand five hundred, as Rabbi Yishmael states in the Midrash, besides those who were not of the children of Israel, for the troop was without number. And it is not possible that all of these enjoyed the scent, except perhaps those seated in the row nearest to the garden, or adjacent to it, for there was a great distance from the garden to most of those who reclined [at the feast]. And I think, according to our own approach, that he withheld from them the kinds of spices [that would be] brought up onto the table for them to smell, and the kinds of music, so as not to nullify the plan he had devised — to feed Israel from the king's food and the wine of his feasts, in order to make them transgress the law of Moses and Israel. For had there been kinds of music there, they would have turned their hearts to listen to the sound of songs; and likewise with kinds of spices, they would have occupied themselves smelling them, and this would have given them a pretext to stop eating and drinking. Therefore he withheld both of these from them, in order to carry out the plan he had devised concerning the Jews. And the sense of the verse appears to be this: since they were in the courtyard of a garden that had no roof over it, therefore, in order to have shade over their heads, he made something like a firmament spread out over pillars of marble, with silver rods and hangings of white, cotton, and blue, like a tent to sit under; and their cords were of fine linen and purple — this is [the meaning of] "held with cords of fine linen and purple." Or, as Rashi explains, they were embroidered with purple. And the tent was spread out over the pillars, and there were couches of gold and silver to sit upon, and the ground was paved with precious stones, namely bahat and shesh (marble and alabaster), etc., as Rashi explains in the name of our Rabbis, of blessed memory. And the verse arranges them from top to bottom: first "white, cotton," etc., which were like a firmament above; then the pillars beneath them; then what was below them, namely the couches, etc.; and then the pavement, which was below everything. And I think that, according to this, his intent was to indicate that he was of Media, of whom [Scripture says], "they shall not regard silver, and as for gold, they shall not delight in it" (Isaiah 13:17), and precious stones were as nothing to him; and therefore he reversed the order of importance. For the most valuable of all, the precious stones, he made into a pavement below, on the ground, for the treading of the foot; and above them, as an adornment, were couches of gold and silver together. And this is all the more so according to the view of Rabbi Nechemiah in a baraita in the Gemara, that the couches were of silver and their legs were of gold — which is indeed the reverse of what logic would suggest, to regard silver as more important than gold. But according to our own statement here, this is quite correct, for he assigned the most valuable item the lowest position, ascending and descending in value, as we have said: the pavement was precious stones; above them, the legs of the couches, [which were] gold; above them, the couches themselves, [which were] silver; and above them, in turn, were also the silver rods; and above all, the hangings of white, cotton, etc., devoid of gold, silver, and precious stones. And it is also possible that this was so that they would not lift their eyes to look at the embroidery of gold and precious stones above, lest, their eyes being fixed [upward], they be delayed from eating and drinking. Therefore he did the reverse, and placed what was more valuable beneath their feet, so that the diners would not be led to look beneath their table and rise from their feast to gaze at the couches or at the pavement of precious stones beneath their feet; and since the good was placed below, as good, they would not lift their eyes upward, and they would eat and drink. It is also possible, when we consider the colors that appeared in the hangings of the tent — "white, cotton, and blue," that is, white, green like a leek, and sky-blue; and "purple," [in] "cords of fine linen and purple" — that the purple was embroidered, or that there were cords of purple attached beneath the hangings, between pillar and pillar, for the hangings to be spread over them, so that four colors were found [there]: white, green, sky-blue, and red — for the fine linen (butz) is also white; and all the more so according to the Targum, which says that "cords of fine linen and purple" means cords of linen dyed purple. In sum, these four colors mentioned are indeed the ones that were visible. It is possible that, since the entire aim and every desire of that king, on the advice of the wicked Haman, was to cause Israel to sin, as stated above, the king and Haman could not avoid having their hearts pricked concerning the children of Israel, saying: "Is this not a criminal sin sufficient to bring about destruction, Heaven forbid," since they are so numerous, according to the view of Rabbi Yishmael? Therefore, what did he do? He placed before them, spread over their heads, nothing but four colors — white, green, sky-blue, and purple, which is red — in order to remind them of the appearance of the rainbow seen in the cloud, for these are its four colors, so that they would take to heart His oath, may He be blessed, not to destroy His world; for if a holy nation of Hashem were destroyed, the world would be destroyed. Yet he would remember the covenant, and acted craftily to make the red thinner than the rest, so as to diminish the remembrance of judgment; and also [arranged] that it be purple and not crimson, whose redness is deeper — for through this matter they would easily fall into the hands of their [evil] inclination and would not consider the end result.

"Chur" [fine white linen] — now he describes the wealth and preciousness that was displayed to him at this feast: since it was held in an open court, without a roof or surrounding wall, he made there hangings spread out all around, of chur (white), karpas (fine cotton), and techelet (blue); and also the cords with which the hangings were tied were of butz (fine linen) and argaman (purple), and the pillars to which the cords of the hangings were tied were of shayish (marble), standing and resting upon rods of silver. (b) The couches on which the banqueters reclined were of gold and silver. (c) Also the pavement was of bahat (green), shesh (white), and precious stones.

"White, fine cotton, and blue" (Esther 1:6) — the meaning of the verse according to its plain sense is that he made pillars, some of silver and some of marble, and he hung upon them hangings made of white, fine cotton, and blue, which are kinds of colors, as is found in the Targum. "Fastened with cords of fine linen and purple" (ibid.) — meaning that they were hung with cords of fine linen and purple; and upon what were they hung? "Upon silver rods and pillars of marble" (ibid.). And there were there "couches of gold and silver" (ibid.), which stood "upon a pavement of green, and white, and shell, and onyx marble" (ibid.) — such is the plain sense of the verse. And in the Gemara (Megillah 12a): "White, fine cotton" — what is meant by "white" [chur]? Rav said: chori chori (perforated, hole-work). And Shmuel said: he spread fine white wool before them. "Fine cotton" [karpas] — Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina said: cushions of many colors [karim shel pasim]. "Upon rods of gold and pillars of marble, couches of gold and silver" — it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehudah says, whatever was fit for silver was made of silver, and whatever was fit for gold was made of gold. Rabbi Nechemyah said: If so, you are introducing rivalry into the feast! Rather, they were of silver, and their legs were of gold. "A pavement of green and white" — what is meant by "green" [bahat]? Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina said: precious stones that gnaw at their owners. And so it says (Zechariah 9:16), "the stones of a crown, glittering over His land." "And shell and onyx marble" — Rav said: row upon row [dari dari]. And Shmuel said: there is a precious stone found in the coastal cities called "darah," and he set it up for them at the feast, and it gave light to everyone at the feast. The academy of Rabbi Yishmael taught: that he proclaimed freedom to all the merchants. The meaning of this is: Rav held that the significance of the hangings, which were "chori chori" [perforated hole-work], lay in the fact that the workmanship itself was of great significance, having come about through very great exertion. And Shmuel said, "he spread fine white wool before them, etc." — and this itself constitutes the significance. And as for what he said, "you are introducing rivalry into the feast" — but above (Megillah 12a) we say, "whatever was fit for the garden [was placed] in the garden," and we do not say that this constitutes rivalry in the feast (this is the question raised by Tosafot there) — there it is different, as we explained above. And as for what he said, "they were of silver, and their legs were of gold" — by reasoning it would have been fitting for it to be the reverse: the legs should be of the lesser material, and the couch itself of the more significant material. But the matter is this: the legs are what bear the couch, and they are what sustains the couch, and it is fitting that the bearer be stronger, for then it endures more. Therefore he made them of gold, for gold is stronger than silver. Furthermore, [regarding] legs — even though they are the most lowly of all, that refers to legs [i.e., human feet] by which one walks from place to place, and there are repulsive, filthy places to which they go. But legs that stand in one place, like the legs of a couch, and are an enduring foundation, are more significant. Therefore he made the legs, which bear the couch, of gold, while the couch itself was of silver, since the bearer is the more significant part. And as for what Rav said, "row upon row" [dari dari] (Megillah 12a), and Shmuel said, "there is a precious stone in the coastal cities" — it appears that they expounded in this way because they were troubled by the fact that the verse places "white" [shesh] first, since surely "shell and onyx marble" are of greater significance, yet are written after "white." Rather, [Rav] came to teach about the quality of the design of the building, that it was made row upon row, in very great beauty. And according to Shmuel, he came to teach an entirely different matter on its own — that he beautified the feast with precious stones that gave them light. And as for the baraita, the verse hints that since he made for them so significant a feast, such as is made for free men, he made them all free men from tariffs. And he did this for the sake of significance, that the people at the feast should be free men. And all of this the verse hints at in that it says "shell and onyx marble" after "white." And as for what Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina (printed editions: Rav Ashi) said, "'Green' [bahat] — [these are stones] that gnaw at their owners," this is because it would have been sufficient to say, "the stone bahat is among the stones of marble" (printed editions: onyx), and therefore they expounded it to mean "that gnaws," explaining that the stone is hollowed out, engraved in a person's heart, on account of the great significance of the stone; and so it is proven from the Aggadah. And you should know that what we have told you — that the feast of this wicked one was in the likeness of a pattern from Above — is so. And for this reason they expounded, "there is a precious stone in the coastal cities; he set it in the middle of the feast, and it gave light to all who were at the feast." And this is like the kingdom of heaven, for the sun gives light to all creatures, showing that there is dominion belonging to Hashem, blessed be He, in His world. And then you will know that his whole intention was to make something like a depiction of the world. And likewise, the one who held that "he proclaimed freedom to all the merchants" means that they should not pay tariffs — for if they were to pay tariffs to the king, it would be as if they themselves were making the feast, since the feast would be made from the proceeds of their tariff money. Therefore he made them free men, to indicate that it was he, the king, who was making the feast for them. And this too is in the likeness of a pattern from Above, that He, blessed be He, sustains everyone and does not receive anything from His creatures — and therefore he did this. Understand this. And just as the Tabernacle, which was His, blessed be He, dwelling place, had sockets (Exodus 26:19), and pillars (Exodus 27:9), and hangings (Exodus 38:9), so did Ahasuerus make. And all this so that the earthly kingdom should be in the likeness of the heavenly kingdom (Berachot 58a). And you will find that he made everything in the pattern of the Tabernacle, where the Divine Presence dwelt. For he made a courtyard, and also a garden, and also a pavilion, just as the Tabernacle had a courtyard, a Tent of Meeting, and a Holy of Holies. And just as there were sockets and pillars there, with hangings spread over them, so too he hung hangings upon silver rods standing upon pillars of marble, which are like the sockets for the pillars — and all this is clear.

As for drinking; golden utensils. [The word וְהַשְׁקוֹת means the same] as וּלְהַשְׁקוֹת and to give to drink. — Notes: (15) Shemos 2:16. Sundry. Different one from the other, and similarly, “and their customs differ,” and our Rabbis expounded what they expounded. — Notes: (16) Below 3:8. (17) Maseches Megillah 12a. The Rabbis said that these vessels were taken from the Bais Hamikdosh. And plenty of royal wine. It was abundant. And our Rabbis said that he gave each one wine to drink that was older than he. — Notes: (18) I.e., רב = הרבה. See Rashi in Bamidbar 16:3. (19) Maseches Megillah 12a.

"Shonim" (diverse) — from the root 'shinuy' (change), and it is an adjective in the pa'ul (passive-participle) pattern; and so also 've-am shonim' (a people that is different) (cf. Esther 3:8). "Ke-yad ha-melekh" (according to the hand of the king) — [meaning] according to [his] power, for power is manifest in the hand.

"And they gave drink," etc. — Behold, its saying "wine, according to the bounty of the king" — which it does not say of the food — is astonishing. For behold, one wealthy man of a nation would suffice to supply wine in abundance to a great populace, and there is no doubt that this is what compelled our Rabbis of blessed memory to say that he brought to each and every one wine from his own province. And according to their words, its saying "according to the bounty of the king" would not refer to the extravagance of wealth in the expenditure of wine, but only that he brought the wine of his own kingdom — that is, "according to the bounty of the king," who ruled 127 provinces, whose hand ruled over all of them for him — he brought wine so as to act according to the will of every single man. It is also possible that this too comes to teach the greatness of his wealth: that although all his serving of drink was in vessels of gold, the vessels differed one from another, and the one from which they had drunk once, they would not drink from a second time, for they would bring another in its place, as mentioned in the Jerusalem Targum, and as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, in these words: "One who was drinking from a cup would not drink from it a second time; rather, as soon as they had drunk from it, they would gather it in and bring out others." And for this there is no doubt that an exceedingly great fortune was required, for the multitude of those seated at the banquet was very great, and if for every single cup that each man among them drank they exchanged the cups, this would be an exceedingly great extravagance. One might therefore have said that this was only possible because the wine was not, in truth, so abundant, and the drinkers were few, so that the vessels would suffice by being exchanged. Therefore it says: observe that they exchanged the vessels at every round of drinking, even though the royal wine was abundant, according to the bounty of the king — for this is an indication of the greatness of his wealth, gold being to him like dust. For even though the vessels of gold, all of them, were exchanged at every round of drinking, and even though the royal wine was such that many drank, and many would drink more than is proper because it was pleasant to them, it was also abundant, according to the bounty of the king, with a great populace, for seven days, and there was no lack in supplying their replacements, and the replacements of their replacements — of gold. It is further possible that all the words of the verse may be explained together, as follows: Behold, it would sometimes happen that a man among those seated would hold back his hand from drinking, for he would be ashamed to stretch out his hand to the wine bowls, until one of the cupbearers stationed at the table would give him drink, and he would take it from his hand. And there are cases where, even if he did drink, whether by his own hand or by the hand of another, he would not have more than three times, as was his custom at home, or even a bit more — yet his desire would be aroused to exceed his custom, for he would set his eye on a golden cup, all the more so if it were fashioned with knobs and flowers, for his soul would desire to drink from it. And even so, he might grow weary of the abundance, unless the wine were very choice; but if it were of the spiced wine that is set upon the tables of kings, he would not withhold his hand from consuming it until there was no more. He states that all these conditions were established together at this feast, and how much more so in light of the intention mentioned. Regarding the first, it says "and they gave drink," for the king commanded that they should not distribute wine so that a man would have to stretch out his own hand to the cup to draw wine; rather, "they gave drink" by means of cupbearers — and so it says "and they gave drink" and does not say "and they drank." And regarding the second, it says "in vessels of gold," for even though the vessels were valuable, after he had drunk from them some ten times, his soul would grow tired of desiring them, and he would not drink to excess. But it would not be so if they exchanged them and brought before him yet more vessels, many and more honored than these, for then his soul would rejoice and yearn to drink cup after cup, heaps upon heaps. Therefore it states that this too was present there — that the vessels were of various kinds, one differing from another. And regarding the third, it says "and royal wine," which is the choicest, reserved specifically for royalty. And since it happens at feasts that they bring choice wine, well preserved, among the wines that are served, but only in a very small quantity, while they have an abundance of the other wines — therefore the guests would not drink much of it, for not every person merits being given of the spiced wine until his desire is satisfied, and who, indeed, merits even four cups of it? Therefore it states that here the choice wine was not a small measure, but abundant, according to the bounty of the king, so that they could drain their cups and drink without limit, and be like a well-watered garden. Now, our Rabbis of blessed memory said that to each one they gave wine older than he in years, and it is possible that they derived this from the word "rav" [great/abundant] — for it does not say "harbeh" [much] — since this is the way of our Rabbis of blessed memory with every instance of the word "rav": to expound it as a term of dominion (rabbanut) or of greatness, for the reason known to those expert in their words. And here they saw that the term of dominion could not apply, so they expounded it as a term of greatness — that the wine was "rav," great. And over whom was it great? You must say: over the one drinking it, [meaning] that it was greater — older — than he in years. And in the general sense of their words, they also gave a reason why it says "according to the bounty of the king" regarding the wine and not regarding the food: for it is not a small matter, but rather a very great one, according to the bounty of the king, to give to each and every man wine older than he in years.

"and gave them drink" — the vessels from which they drank were of gold; and not only that, but "vessels differing one from another." MaHaRa'A explains that in each place there were set up various vessels together — such as a golden flagon holding the wine, and cups for drinking from, and so forth — so that before each person stood all the vessels needed for drinking, all of them of gold, so that no one needed to take a vessel from his fellow. This indicates the abundance of the vessels. And lest you say that the vessels were [only] sufficient because there was not much wine, it therefore says "and royal wine in abundance" — the wine was abundant in quantity, according to the bounty of the king, and it was also good in quality, as indicated by the phrase "royal wine," so that the drinkers increased on account of its goodness and sweetness.

"and vessels of vessels, shonim [varying]" (Esther 1:7) — It would appear, according to the plain sense, that the reason it is not written 'meshunim' [different/extraordinary] is that this would imply that they were different from the other vessels that other people have, and therefore it is written "shonim" [varying/changing]. Furthermore, this is also why it does not say 'vessels of vessels meshunim' — for that would imply that they were [all available] together, such that all of them together would have sufficed to serve those who were at the feast. But "shonim" implies that they took these away and gave them others to drink from, and that with those alone, being of a single kind, it would have been enough for them to drink. From this one may also learn that the vessels were different (meshunim) from one another — for if not so, why did they exchange them and give these in place of the others, except that they were different from one another. And in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther 1048): "Whoever was drinking from this cup would not repeat with it again; rather, he would put it away, and it became his own" — end of quote. Now, this Midrash interprets "vessels of vessels" to mean that the vessels were of a single kind, but because the first [guests] took them and put them away in their pouches, it was necessary to give out others. And this was because [Achashverosh wanted] every feast of that wicked one to be like the kingdom of heaven (malkhuta di-rekia); for behold, Hashem, after He gives something to a person, does not go back and take it from him — [and] Hashem, who sustains everything, gives him his needs. And in the Gemara (Megillah 12a): "'vessels of vessels, shonim' — it should have said meshunim!" Rava said: A heavenly voice (bat kol) went forth: "The first ones perished on account of these vessels, and you make use of them?!" — end of quote. Now, one may raise a difficulty on this: if so, why was Achashverosh not punished, seeing that he made use of the sacred vessels according to the Gemara's opinion? It seems one should say that, in the Gemara's view, since Belshazzar had already made use of them (Nedarim 62a) and they had become non-sacred (chullin), the punishment was therefore not so severe. Nevertheless, they should not have done so, and they did it only to glorify themselves; and therefore it says, "and you make use of them, etc." "and royal wine, rav [in abundance]" (ibid.) — According to the plain sense, one may explain that this wine belonged to royalty, and it was distinguished and abundant, and this is why it is called "royal wine, rav." One may also explain "royal wine" to mean that it was distinguished wine, and [separately, that] the wine was abundant — and this is [the meaning of] "rav," that it was abundant. And Scripture did not write that there was 'much royal wine' (yein malchut harbeh), because the expression 'harbeh' [much] could be understood to mean that they gave and gave again repeatedly, until eventually there was much wine — and such a matter would be gradual and limited. But here it states "royal wine, rav," implying that they gave a great amount all at one time, for the term "rav" is a term of magnitude, and something is called "great" only when it is all together, such that it constitutes greatness. And because Scripture did not specify to what degree it is called "rav," it says "according to the hand of the king" — meaning, whatever is called "rav" by the king's standard. And in the Gemara (Megillah 12a): "'royal wine, rav' — this teaches that he gave each and every one wine older than himself in years to drink" — end of quote. And there is a question: why did he do this? And the explanation of this is that wine corresponds to man: just as is the case with wine, so is the case with man — the older a person is, the clearer his understanding. And wine, too, the older it is, the clearer it is. And our Sages, of blessed memory, said (Avot 4:21): "One who learns from elders is like one who drinks old wine" — and we have explained this to mean that the understanding of elders is clear, and their intellect is like old wine, which is pure and clear. And if one gave an elder wine that was not [aged] like him, this would be a disgrace to him, meaning that it would suggest that his mind is not clear. And therefore he gave each one wine that was older than himself. Furthermore, [the word] "yayin" (wine) has the numerical value of seventy (Eruvin 65a), and this corresponds to the years of a person's life, which are seventy. For wine gives life to a person, for it "gladdens the heart of man" (based on Psalms 104:15), in whom is life. And this is [the meaning of] what is said when drinking wine over every single cup: "Chayei ve-chamra le-fum rabbanan" (Life, and wine, to the mouths of the Sages). And therefore it is written (Ecclesiastes 10:19), "and wine gladdens life." Therefore, according to the years of life of each person, he gave him wine, for wine represents life. And therefore, one cannot say that by this he was sowing jealousy at the feast — for on the contrary: according to the first explanation, it is proper to honor and glorify the elders, and therefore it is fitting that he give the elder, whose understanding is clear and pure, old wine — each one according to what he is, he gave him wine. And according to the second explanation as well, he gave him wine according to his lifespan. And furthermore, one may explain that old wine puts the mind of elders at ease. Therefore he gave each one wine that was older, and thereby his mind would be settled.

Proper. Because there are feasts in which they coerce those seated to drink [the contents] of a large vessel, and some can only drink it with difficulty, but here it was “with no coercion.” — Notes: (20) Alternatively, no one was coerced into finishing his drink quickly in order to make his cup available to someone else because there were enough cups for all [השתיה כדת]. Basically instructed. An expression referring to a foundation [יְסוֹד], meaning, so he instituted and commanded. All his palace officials. All stewards of the feast: the chief baker, the chief butcher and the chief butler. To satisfy each individual’s desire. For each one his desire. — Notes: (21) Each person was served wine from his native land. (See Maseches Megillah 12a)

"Ve-hashtiyah" (and the drinking) — on the pattern of 'be-koach ha-akhilah' (in the power of the eating); for the dagesh in the yod is because of the hidden yod, which stands in place of the root letter heh. "Ke-dat" (according to the law) — [meaning] according to statute; and it [dat] is a feminine noun, yet it is joined to the masculine, like [the words] 'nashim' (wives) and 'pilagshim' (concubines). "Ones" (compulsion) — one who compels; and it is close in sense to 've-khol raz lo anes lakh' (and no secret is too difficult for you) (Daniel 4:6). "Rav beito" (the officer of his house) — [meaning] great, like 've-rabei ha-melekh' (and the chief officers of the king) (Jeremiah 41:1).

"And the drinking, etc." — What is correct in our view, in its saying "according to the law," is that if an Israelite were to say, "I do not want the king's wine, which is not in accordance with the law of Moses and Israel," they would not compel him to transgress the law — and the same reasoning applies to the other nations. Now, in coming to explain the verse, let us first note: (1) why does it hang the matter on the absence of compellers, rather than on the absence of compulsion, saying "there is no compulsion" [reading אונס] with the accent on the penultimate syllable? (2) It would be proper for the words to be stated in their order: mentioning first the cause — how the king established [this] over all the officers of his house — and afterward the effect — that therefore there is no compulsion, since it is the king's command — rather than beginning with what follows from the king's statement, that there is no compulsion, and only afterward giving the reason that the king had established it from the start. (3) It says "established" [yisad] and not "decreed" [gazar]. (4) It says "over all the officers of his house" — why was his statement not all-encompassing, rather than limited to "all the officers of his house" alone? (5) It says "to do according to every man's will, etc.," and does not simply say that the king had established that they should not compel. Now, regarding the first difficulty and the term "established," it may be said that this is the way of those who drink from wine-bowls: were the king's command concerning the conduct of the drinking — that no man should compel another, and the like — [to remain in force only] at first, then at the start, when the heat of the wine begins and their hearts are still steady, they would heed the king's command; but once their hearts grow merry with wine, they no longer heed the king or his command, for the wine inflames them. Scripture therefore says that the drinking, according to the law, no man compelled his fellow among all who reclined, for even though wine plays false with people, here it did not play false, because the king had so established it, etc. — for his decree over all the officers of his house was established, in essence, like a firmly-laid foundation that does not totter even though they drink much, because the great officers of the house remain steadfastly at their post in this matter. Furthermore, it may be understood in light of all we have noted, following the path of our Sages that we have followed until now — that the whole aim and desire of the king was to trip up Israel through the wicked counsel of Haman. This is it: the king saw himself in great perplexity, saying to himself: Behold, the people of the children of Israel have a commandment from their God upon them not to drink the wine of their libations; therefore it must be one of two things — either they will drink and be caught, or they will not drink, because they will take refuge in the strength of their religion. If they do not drink, the counsel of the king and Haman is nullified. And if they do drink — if it is by means of a decree upon all the nations that they must drink — they will be judged as having been compelled, and will not truly be caught by the throat. And if he says that they should not be compelled to transgress their religion, so that "in the drinking, according to the law, there was no compulsion," behold, there are two evils in this: First, that perhaps they would withdraw their hands a second time, since it would be enough of a disgrace to the king were he to decree this openly — they would reject the wine of his feast and the wine of the libation of their God — and so he would not do this. And if he remains silent, neither compelling nor commanding that "according to the law there is no compulsion," but rather leaves the matter to their own choice, then many will drink, thinking it is the king's desire, and the drinkers will be caught. But behold, all the officers of the king's house and those who recline with him, from among his servants and his people, when they see a Jewish man refusing to drink, will compel him, and their terror will spread over the rest, and all will be regarded as compelled. And if he commands the great officers of the house not to compel any man regarding the matter of religion, that is not in keeping with his honor, for it would seem to disgrace the wine of his feast and his religion in their eyes. Therefore he considered and instituted two things: First, he took wondrous pains to make preparations that would draw a person after the wine of his libations — giving drink in vessels of gold, and vessels, etc., and royal wine belonging to the king was prepared. By this, even if the king should refrain from decreeing that they must drink, no man would hold back his hand from the wine-bowls, because the preparations themselves would not let them restrain their hands, lest it be heard that among the many some did not drink. Therefore, after presenting the aforementioned preparations, he grew still more cunning, and established over all the officers of his house, in a general way, that they should act according to every man's will — so that it would follow from this that they would not compel any of them regarding drinking that was not according to the law, lest "doing according to every man's will" not be fulfilled. And by this, the honor of the king was preserved, for he did not say that they should not compel one who transgresses the king's religion, but only "to do according to every man's will" — from which it followed that they would not be compellers. It thus emerges that not compelling the one who refrains from drinking, because it is the king's command, is fulfilled only incidentally, and does not touch the king's honor; for the foundation he established was not that they should not compel anyone regarding his royal wine, but rather this followed from the foundation of "doing the will of every man." And even this he did not publicize except regarding all the officers of his house alone — this being after the king was confident that many would drink because of the aforementioned preparations. Therefore, after mentioning the preparations that arouse the accompanying desire for drink, in saying "and giving drink, etc.," it then says "and the drinking, etc.," meaning that there was no one among the king's servants who would compel, because the king had so established, etc., "to do according to every man's will" — for he made a firm foundation that they should take care to act according to every man's will, from which foundation it would follow that there would be no compulsion. This is why it says "established," as stated. And therefore it did not put first what the king established, and afterward what follows from it — that there is no compulsion — lest it appear that saying "to do according to every man's will" was the main point, and that it merely followed on its own that there was no compulsion. Rather, the reverse is true: what followed was the main point, but in order that the king not be shamed, he made that foundation. Therefore it hangs the matter on "compellers," saying "there is no compulsion" [reading אונס] with the accent on the final syllable — meaning that it need not be said that the king's whole desire was to trip Israel up, and that they should not be judged as having been compelled; rather, even the king's servants were not compellers, because he had so established, etc. And throughout, the term "foundation" [yesod] is used, because he made a foundation and a preparation for what would follow, without stating the consequence explicitly, out of regard for his own honor. And even this was limited to "all the officers of his house," so as to conceal the matter, that it should not be understood by the common people, even in this hidden way. Now, our Sages of blessed memory said that "to do according to every man's will" means according to the will of Mordechai, called "the Jewish man," and according to the will of Haman, called "the man, the adversary and enemy." There is no doubt that it was difficult for them to understand why it should not simply say "according to the will of every man" — what is the meaning of "man and man"? Rather, it means according to the will of two individuals, separate from one another — this is why it does not say "men" in the plural — and who are these if not Mordechai and Haman? Now, this matter appears quite strange, for nothing at all of Mordechai's will is found in this — only evil, according to the will of Haman alone. This is all the more so according to the statement of Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha in the Midrash, which states: "Haman the wicked came upon Israel with a false accusation — as is written, 'And when the days were fulfilled, etc.' — and 'the people' refers only to Israel, etc. When Mordechai saw this, he arose and proclaimed to them, saying: Do not go to eat from the feast of Achashverosh, for he has invited you only to have grounds to accuse you, etc. But they did not listen to the words of Mordechai, etc." Thus far. This shows that this abomination was done against the will of Mordechai. But it may be, according to their view of blessed memory, that since Mordechai was also great before the king, and stood opposed to the wicked Haman who sought to make Israel sin, the king did the following: he arose and imposed a compromise between them. This becomes clear when we attend to the definite article heh in the word "ha-shetiyah" [the drinking] — for it does not say "ve-shatot ka-dat, etc." [simply, "and to drink according to the law"], but rather means that "the drinking" specifically should be "according to the law, none compelled" — but not the eating; for if a man were to say, "I do not want pig's meat," he would forfeit his head to the king. And should you ask, what is the difference between the drinking and the eating in this regard? To this it says: the king had so established over all the officers of his house, that they should not compel in drinking, but only in eating — and this is "to do according to every man's will": according to Haman's will regarding eating, and according to Mordechai's will regarding drinking. And he chose wine to do according to Mordechai's will, because he knew that they would not refrain from drinking the royal wine, given the aforementioned preparations, and would not be judged as having been compelled — even though the matter of idolatry [attached to the wine] is graver than the prohibition of eating. Or something similar to this: should you ask, if the king had no desire to make them transgress their religion through wine, why did he make all the aforementioned preparations and "give them to drink," etc., when there is no doubt that they would not have the strength to restrain their desire? To this it says: "according to every man's will" — in the preparations, according to Haman's will, so that the righteous would put forth their hands in wrongdoing; but "in the drinking there is no compulsion," according to Mordechai's will. Now, in Midrash Chazit, our Sages of blessed memory said that its saying "to do according to every man's will" means to set up harlots before the children of Israel, so that they would eat and drink and act with the harlots according to their will. It is fitting to consider how the phrase "for so the king had established, etc." would serve as a reason for what precedes it. But this is understood by what our Sages of blessed memory said, in explaining that "the drinking was according to the law" — that this refers to a law of Media and Persia at feasts, whereby one would give a man a large, full cup, and either he would drink it, or he would ransom himself with a great sum of money — and it says that regarding this there was no compulsion. And by this, according to the view of our Sages of blessed memory, the meaning of the verse will be: "And the drinking was according to the law" — there was no compulsion upon those reclining, from among all the king's officers who wished to keep the law of the kingdom, because the king had so established over all the officers of his house, to do according to every man's will, with the harlots. And how could this be accomplished, if they were compelled with wine? They would become drunk, and the purpose regarding the harlots would not come to fruition, for they would not know what they were doing, whether they lay down or rose up. And in the Gemara it is taught in a beraita: His students asked Rashbi [Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai], "Why, heaven forbid, were Israel of that generation held liable for destruction?" He said to them: "You say [the reason]." They said: "Because they benefited from the feast of that wicked man." [He objected:] "If so, those of Shushan should be killed; those of the rest of the world should not be killed." They said to him: "You say." He said: "Because they bowed down to the image." They said to him: "Is there then favoritism in the matter?" He said to them: "They only did so outwardly, and the Holy One, blessed be He, also dealt with them only outwardly, as it is written, 'for He does not afflict willingly.'" Thus far. And it is fitting to note: First, what sort of question is this? They themselves are the ones who said "because they benefited from his feast, etc." If the difficulty of "those of Shushan should be killed, etc." was troubling to them, why did they answer their teacher "because they benefited"? They should have said, "This is exactly what troubles us — why was the destruction all-encompassing, even for those outside of Shushan?" Or they should have said, "We do not know, and that is why we asked." Second: who told them that they were in fact held liable? Perhaps it was only outward, or perhaps their distress came upon them for some less severe sin, and they received their punishment through that suffering, and Hashem saved them. Third: to examine precisely the language "of that generation" — since this is meant to specify which generation they were asking about, it should have said "in the days of Achashverosh." But there is no doubt that he and they knew that they were asking about the generation of Mordechai, and if so, this is superfluous. Fourth: in his saying "You say" — who told him that they knew the answer, that he should say to them "You say"? Perhaps they needed to be taught. Fifth: in their answer, "because they benefited, etc." — is it conceivable that for the mere enjoyment of a feast they would be held liable for destruction? Sixth: as for the objection he raises — what exactly does it establish? Seventh: in saying "is there then favoritism in the matter?" — but according to their own view, how is this resolved? After all, once they had been found liable, why were they saved? Would this not also be favoritism in the matter? And if their view is that they repented, then it would not be difficult for Rashbi either — and it is forced to say that they repented for this sin but not for that one. But behold, our Sages of blessed memory found three reasons for Israel's being "sold" to Haman. Some said it was because they bowed down to the image. Rabbi Yissachar of Kefar Mandi said in Midrash Chazit that it was for their selling of the righteous one [Joseph] for money, and the Targum mentions this as well. The third reason is that they benefited from the feast of Achashverosh. Now, these perfect ones saw the three reasons mentioned, and they also saw that the reason which is more correct is the reason of benefiting from the feast, in the manner we have mentioned. This is because, if we say it was for the sin of the image, and the Holy One, blessed be He, extended time for them to repent, and they did not repent, then it would be difficult for them to explain "and is there favoritism in the matter?" — and there is no answer to this, unless one says that they were never truly held liable for destruction at all, and that the whole thing was distress only in outward appearance. And they saw that it was not for naught that Mordechai, who possessed the holy spirit, placed Esther in mortal danger and did not wait even thirty days for her to be summoned to come to the king, even though the time was eleven months; and also all the terror with which Mordechai trembled in the city square, crying out a great and bitter cry, in fasting, sackcloth, and ashes. All the more so, if they knew the statement in Midrash Chazit, that a letter of destruction was written before Him, blessed be He, and that Eliyahu went to the Patriarchs, and they paid him no heed, until he went to Moshe; and Moshe asked him whether it was sealed with blood, and he told him to go to Mordechai, that he should pray from there, and Moshe from here — and this is the meaning of "and Mordechai knew all that was done, etc." — this being the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. In light of all this, their view concurred that Israel was certainly held liable. This is the meaning of "why were they held liable" — for they were uncertain only about the reason for the liability. For in saying "were held liable," they excluded the reason of the image; and the second reason as well, that it was for the sale of Joseph, they rejected by saying "of that generation" — for on that reason, the question would be: why were the feet of the members of that particular generation caught, out of all the generations from Joseph until Mordechai? And had they said only, "why were Israel of that generation held liable," without saying the word "destruction," they would have indicated that they were uncertain about the very existence of the liability, as to what it was for. But by saying "destruction," they indicated that the liability itself was not in doubt for them, but rather that their question was why there was destruction. This is because they held to the third reason, that they benefited from the feast, and their only difficulty was why there was destruction for all of Israel, and not for the people of Shushan alone. Thus, by saying "were held liable," they diminished the reason of the image; by saying "of that generation," they diminished the reason of the sale of Joseph; and by saying "destruction," they showed that they had chosen the reason of the feast — for their entire question was only why their liability was for destruction, and not for only part of them, namely the people of Shushan. Now, their teacher saw that his answer, that it was because they bowed to the image, could only be sound by overturning their premise, and saying that they had never been liable from the start. He therefore said to himself: If I tell them that they were not liable for destruction, but that it was only outward, their hearts will surely turn bitter, since this is the opposite of what appears to them. He therefore resolved in his heart not to reveal his own view until they stated their view, so that he could refute them by a compelling difficulty, so that they would afterward believe his argument. He therefore said, "You say" — meaning: if you were perplexed as to why there was liability at all, I would say that you hold no reason whatsoever, and I would immediately state my own view. But since you did not say, "Why were Israel of that generation held liable," but also said the word "destruction" — this shows that, granting the premise that the liability was indeed upon them, and not merely apparent, your question is why there was total destruction. If so, he said to them: state the reason for the existence of the liability, about which you ask why there was destruction. Then they said: "Because they benefited, etc., and on this premise we ask why there was total destruction." Then he said to them: this is not a question against the premise of the reason, but rather a sufficient objection to uproot the premise from its very root — for one cannot say that Israel should be grouped together with the rest of the world regarding sins that men in general do not lack, along with the sin of the feast, and thereby be held liable for destruction; for behold, even granting that a sin was found common to them and to the rest of the world, nevertheless you yourselves say that those of Shushan should be killed and those of the rest of the world should not be killed — even if guilt of some matter is found in them, they should not be killed, to be sentenced to death like these. Then they said, "You say" — meaning, this is difficult for you too. And he answered: "because they bowed to the image." And they objected to him: "but is there then favoritism in the matter?" Rashi comments on "favoritism, etc.," explaining "that they merited the miracle" — it is possible that he sensed what we have noted, that according to their own view, how is this resolved? "Is there favoritism in the matter" means: that they were saved after having been held liable for benefiting from the feast — and had they repented before Him, blessed be He, this would not be difficult even for their teacher either. And he answered that "they merited the miracle." This is because the miracle done for them was wondrous — for beyond mere rescue, it was reversed for them, such that they ruled over their enemies, and for the Jews there was light, gladness, joy, and honor. Therefore, if the sin of the image had been severe, they would not have merited a miracle beyond mere rescue, even upon their repentance — unlike the matter of the feast, in which the rest of the world did not sin. This is why Rashi, of blessed memory, says "that they merited the miracle," and does not say merely "that they were saved" — for at that point Rashbi revealed to them his own opinion, the opposite of their premise, and said: "They only did it outwardly" — meaning that they were never truly liable — and said, "as it is written, 'for He does not afflict willingly,' etc." — meaning: do not wonder and say, how could it be that all that sorrow and that great distress was over a matter that was only outward? For behold, Scripture states, "for He does not afflict willingly, etc." — meaning that even when He does not afflict willingly, but only outwardly, nevertheless He does "grieve the children of men." And this is the meaning of "as it is written, 'for He does not afflict,' etc."

"and the drinking" — and nevertheless, the drinking was without compulsion. For at a feast where the vessels are not sufficient, [the hosts] compel those seated together to hurry and drink their portion, so that they may take his cup to pour for others; but here each one had his own drinking vessel by himself, and they did not compel him to drink, for none of them needed his fellow's vessel — and this indicates the abundance of the golden vessels that were there. And although it was already the custom of the Persians to honor the great man in drinking (as it is said in [Tractate] Berakhot: "these Persians are more expert than we are in the order of reclining"), nevertheless here they did not compel [anyone] in this regard; rather each one drank by himself according to his own will. And so that this should not be [taken] as a disgrace to the great men and a lack of honor, the king established this for every officer and nobleman of his household, that they were obligated to act this way — in such a manner that they themselves waived their own honor, in order to act according to each man's individual will.

"and the drinking was according to the law; none did compel" (Esther 1:8) — According to its plain sense, the meaning of "the drinking was according to the law" is natural — according to what is fitting for one's body and nature, so that the drinking was not against nature. "None did compel" means that they did not force him to drink more than was proper. These are two things: the first, that the drink itself should not be harmful to a person; and also, that the drink should not be forced upon a person to drink more than is proper. Therefore it says "the drinking was according to the law; none did compel." And in the Gemara (Megillah 12a): What is meant by "according to the law"? Rabbi Chanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: According to the law of the Torah — just as the law of the Torah has eating exceeding drinking, so too the feast of that wicked one had eating exceeding drinking. ["None did compel"] — Rava said: this teaches that he gave each one to drink wine from his own province — thus ends the Gemara's statement. They meant by this that the eating at the feast was more than the drinking. Even though a person desires and craves drinking more than eating, nevertheless the feast of that wicked one was according to what is proper, and was not carried after desire so that the drinking would exceed the eating — for then there would be drunkenness in it, and drunkenness is utterly degrading to a person. And his whole intent in this feast was that everything be conducted in a manner of honor, and not in a degrading manner. And for this reason, the eating prescribed by the law of the Torah exceeds the drinking, to teach a person that his meal should have more eating than drinking, and not [more] drinking, which is drunkenness, which is disgraceful and shameful. And even though the feast as a whole is called by the name of drinking, this is a separate matter, because eating itself is not like drinking — for when drinking is done as is proper, our Sages of blessed memory said of this (Yoma 76b), "Wine and fragrances make one perceptive." This is when one does not drink much wine to the point of becoming drunk, as they said there: "Why is it called 'tirosh' (Hosea 4:11)? If one is worthy, he becomes a rosh (head); if he is not worthy, he becomes rash (destitute)." Therefore it is not proper that it be excessive. Nevertheless, the feast is called by the name of the mishteh [drinking-feast]. And when one drank as much as was proper for him, they would not say "he drank," in the way people say to guests, "Eat, friends, drink, be drunk with love" (cf. Song of Songs 5:1). But regarding one who drank more than was proper, they would not say "drink, be drunk with love." And it is very difficult: since their eating exceeded their drinking, why did the verse not mention the eating here, and mention [only] the drinking? One may explain that the verse did not mention the eating here because it came only to relate the calamity that befell Vashti, and the calamity came about through the drinking, as it is written (verse 10), "On the seventh day, when the king's heart was merry with wine, he said to Mehuman, etc." Therefore it mentioned here only what caused the calamity that came upon Vashti. It further appears that the feast itself was not written about, because it is no novelty that he made a great feast, and there is no praise in doing something that everyone does. But regarding the other matters mentioned there, he is being praised — and so he is praised regarding the wine, for perhaps he did not have wine older than himself in years. And so everything that the verse relates is a matter of great novelty. And with this is also resolved what they ask: why did it not mention that he had musical instruments at the wine-feast, which is the main [source] of joy, as it is said (Isaiah 24:9), "They shall not drink wine with a song" — from which we learn that it is customary for there to be song at a wine-feast — and if so, why did the verse not mention that he had singers and musical instruments? This is not a difficulty, since there is no exertion involved in this, and also no great expense, for singers can be had by the thousand for a mere pittance. Therefore the verse listed only what involved exertion to obtain and great expense. And there would have been more reason to ask why it does not relate the eating and its preparation, which exceeded the drinking, as our Sages of blessed memory said (Megillah 12a). Rather, it is because the feast itself is no novelty, even though he spent a great deal of money on the feast. Rather, Scripture speaks of the matter in which the expense and exertion were great. This is [seen in] the preparation (verse 6) of "white linen (chur), greenish cotton (karpas), and blue (techelet)" — this entire matter requires great preparation and exertion. And so too the preparation of the vessels (verse 7). And so too "royal wine in abundance" (ibid.), which was old wine — such a thing is not [readily] found, and it required great exertion and preparation. But the eating does not require so much preparation. And as for what the verse also relates (verse 8), "and the drinking was according to the law; none did compel" — what does it come to teach? Certainly this is a significant matter, for there are those who are not careful about this, and who want [their guests] to drink more than they need so that they become drunk and are then unable to drink more. But Achashverosh, since his feast lasted many days, [reasoned that] if they became too drunk, or if the drinking were something harmful to a person, he would be in pain and not come the next day, as happens with drunkards, who are unable to do so [continue] the next day. Therefore Achashverosh, so that the people who came to the feast would not be missing, did not do this. And therefore it also says (verse 8), "to do according to every man's pleasure" — all so that they would return to the feast the next day. It further appears that this is why the eating was not mentioned: the verse comes to relate the king's honor, as it is written (verse 4), "when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom." And the people reclining to drink — this too is his honor. Therefore they said (Megillah 12a) that he gave each one to drink wine that was older than himself in years, and all this is the honor of his kingdom. But eating is a corporeal matter, in which people merely fill their bellies. Therefore there is no reason to mention this at the king's feast, which is for the honor of the kingdom. But the matter of wine — certainly wine has honor in it, since wine gladdens a person's heart, and people are joyous from wine. Also, wine and fragrances make one perceptive (Yoma 76b), for they give a person wisdom and knowledge, as our Sages of blessed memory said there, "If one is worthy, he becomes a rosh (head); if he is not worthy, he becomes rash (destitute)." For this reason the feast as a whole is called by the name of drinking, because eating alone is corporeal, and eating is needed only so that a person should not be lacking; and through eating, by which he becomes satiated, the wine then gladdens him. Therefore the feast as a whole is called by the name of wine. And even though a person's completion is certainly through eating, nevertheless, this feast, which was for the honor of the king — the main honor is the drinking, and not the eating. Therefore it mentioned the drinking, and the verse did not mention the eating, for on the contrary, eating dulls a person's heart. For before a person eats and drinks he has two hearts, and after he has eaten and drunk he has one heart, as stated in the first chapter of [Tractate] Bava Batra (12b), as we explained there. Therefore it is not fitting to mention the bulk of the eating. And in everything that it relates, there is nothing except the greatness of his honor, as we have written. But this is difficult: if the feast of that wicked one had eating exceeding [drinking], and if so the drinking was only according to need, then how could it occur to you that there would be compulsion in the drinking, since the drinking was not excessive? This is what they found difficult, and therefore Rabbi Eliezer said: this teaches that each one was given to drink wine from his own province. He meant to say that there was nothing in the feast that was harmful to a person, even in this matter — for the wine of one's own province is more natural to him than any other wine, since any change is for the worse, and that to which one is more accustomed is natural to him. This too was part of his feast, that his feast was natural, and this is close to the plain sense, as we have said. "to do according to every man's pleasure" (verse 8) — According to its plain sense, the verse comes to say: even though it was already written (here) "and the drinking was according to the law; none did compel," meaning that they would not give him anything that was harmful to him — nevertheless, as for doing his will, whatever he might request, this had not been mentioned at all. Therefore it is written "to do his pleasure" — to give to each one whatever he might request. And because when the will of each and every one is carried out, this is difficult, as if the one at the feast were master of the house, since [the staff] must do his will — therefore it says "for so the king had appointed," and he decreed [this] upon every officer of his house. And in the Gemara (Megillah 12a) it says: "'to do according to the pleasure of every man' — [this refers to] the will of Mordechai and Haman: Mordechai — since the word "ish" is written of him, as it is written (below, 2:5), "a certain Jew" (ish Yehudi); Haman — as it is written (below, 7:6), "a man, an adversary and an enemy" (ish tzar ve-oyev)" — thus ends the Gemara's statement. They observed precisely that it would have sufficed to write merely "according to the will of every man," and therefore they, of blessed memory, explained that the verse comes to say that this feast was fitting for two men who are completely opposed. And they are only two, for the righteous person and the wicked person are but two categories, and within these two are included everyone — for all the righteous are included as one, as though they were a single man, and likewise all the wicked are included as one, as though he were a single man. And as for what it says "according to the will of Mordechai and Haman" — this is because the essential righteous one is Mordechai, and the essential [embodiment] of the wicked is Haman. And the verse comes to say that although they are two opposites, righteous and wicked, like Mordechai and Haman — this one being completely righteous and that one completely wicked; this one [Haman] made himself into an object of idol worship, and that one [Mordechai] was one who sanctified the Name in the face of idol worship — and they are complete opposites. And certainly what is dear to one is not dear to the other, and this is called "man and man" [ish va-ish], inasmuch as they are opposed: for the wicked one desires to drink wine so as to be joyous, and to eat whatever he craves, even forbidden food. But the righteous one does not desire [such] joy, for "as for joy, what does it accomplish?" (Ecclesiastes 2:2), and therefore he does not desire an abundance of wine. And you should also not say that Achashverosh said "to do his pleasure" specifically regarding the righteous one, because he is righteous. For even though Achashverosh was himself wicked, nevertheless, before other people he did not show himself to be wicked. Therefore it is written that he also commanded that the will of the wicked one be done. And had it written [only] "to do according to the will of the wicked," one might have thought it meant specifically to do the will of the wicked, since he himself was wicked. Therefore it says that whether righteous or wicked, his will would be done. Even though the person who loves the righteous hates the wicked, and if he loves the wicked, he hates the righteous — nevertheless it says "to do his pleasure." For the entire concern of Achashverosh was to do the will of those who were at the feast. One may also explain "to do according to the pleasure" to mean: whatever each one seeks to do, nothing holds him back — and this is "according to the pleasure of every man," meaning that every single man does according to his will, whether for good or for evil. And we have already explained that Achashverosh made a feast that would resemble the feast that Hashem makes for mankind in His world. For Hashem allows each person to do his own will, and the choice is in his hand to act as he wishes, whether he be righteous or wicked — He gives him [the ability] to do his will, as they said (Shabbat 104a), "One who comes to purify himself is assisted; one who comes to defile himself, the door is opened for him." And likewise, what it says (here), "and the drinking was according to the law; none did compel," is all said regarding this matter. This is because He, blessed be He, created everything in His world as things that are good and fitting for man, and are not harmful to man, and each one finds what is fitting for him and what he desires. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 2:14): "'To do according to the pleasure of every man' — the Holy One, blessed be He, said: I do not go outside the nature of My creatures, yet you seek to do according to the pleasure of every man? It is the way of the world that when two men seek to marry the same woman — can she marry both of them? Rather, only one or the other. And likewise, two ships entering a harbor, one seeking a north wind and one seeking a south wind — can a single wind direct both of them as one? Rather, only one or the other." And the explanation of this is: even though Achashverosh made his feast to resemble the kingdom of heaven, and for this reason made his feast "according to the pleasure of every man" — [nonetheless,] the will of man is not [always] carried out in whatever he wishes, as is explained [in the Midrash]. And from this it is proven that Achashverosh sought to make his feast resemble the feast of the kingdom of heaven; for if not so, what would it matter that Hashem does not act according to the pleasure of every man? Rather, he [Achashverosh] wished "to do according to the pleasure of every man" in every way possible for him, and whatever was possible for him to do, he would do. Therefore one must say that he wished to make [his feast] resemble the kingdom of heaven, and it is regarding this that it says that Hashem does not do the will of every man. And it appears that the Gemara raises this same difficulty stated in the Midrash, that no person can do according to the pleasure of every man, since it is impossible: if the will of one is fulfilled in this matter, then the will of another cannot also be fulfilled in the same matter. For if one brings to a person something whose fragrance is dear to him, another cannot [also] smell that same fragrance [to his own liking] — behold, it is contrary to him. Therefore they explained (Megillah 12a) that "the pleasure of every man" [ish va-ish] refers to Mordechai and Haman. And if so, the verse speaks only of the matter of the righteous and the wicked, like Mordechai and Haman — that Hashem gives him the choice to act, and nothing from Heaven prevents him from doing his will; rather, the choice is in his hand to do as he chooses.

"Beit ha-malchut" (the royal house) — [the phrase] is missing a bet, like 'ha-gemala beit Hashem.'

"Also Vashti the queen...," etc. — This comes to teach us how we ought to praise the Master of all, who chose us from among all that He created, and how wondrous is His love for us, blessed be He, beyond the love for [natural] sons. For behold, a father, regarding a son whom he loves, when that son strays, prepares a rod for him and strikes him; and after striking him, "He who tore will heal us; He struck, and He will bind us up" (Hosea 6:1). But who is this, and which is the merciful father who, at the very time and moment his only son angers him, prepares his cure and remedy before [striking]? And who is so blind as not to see the greatness of His mercy, blessed be He, who has made His love for us so wondrous, without limit — enough to love Him, blessed be He, and to cleave to Him with all one's soul and all one's might, with intense longing from the depths of the heart? For He is our God, He is our Father, and all His concern is to make His kindness to us wondrous. For it is not only that the flower of the remedy blossoms before the blow [falls], but that even from the very place of our iniquity and wickedness — from there our salvation sprouts. For behold, we transgressed and rebelled at the feast of Ahasuerus, and there He set in place for us the sprouting of the horn of salvation. For "Also Vashti the queen made [a feast]," etc. — He, blessed be He, put it into the mouth of the king to bring Vashti the queen before him at that very feast at which we sinned, and it followed that she would be killed, vacating a place for Esther to inherit, so that through her our redemption would come, and the rectification of the deed by which we sinned. For by her command and counsel came our forgiveness — for corresponding to the pleasure of that feast, she commanded us to fast night and day, and a remedy arose for the sickness of our wickedness, and He redeemed us according to His mercy and the abundance of His kindnesses. Now to explain the verse, let us note the redundancy in the words "which belonged to king Ahasuerus" — for who does not know that the royal house is his? And let us also pay attention to its saying "Vashti the queen" and not "the queen Vashti," just as in this very verse it says "to king Ahasuerus" and not "to Ahasuerus the king" — whereas earlier it says of her "the queen Vashti" [in the reverse order]. Rather, [Scripture] means to say: See now how this woman grew haughty. For behold, it would have been fitting for her to make her feast in the house of the women, and not in his royal house — and indeed the king made his feast in the courtyard — as our Rabbis of blessed memory raised the difficulty: "it should have said, 'the house of the women,'" etc. But she grew haughty, saying that she herself was a queen in her own right, for she was a daughter of kings, while he was but the stable-master of her father's house. And she failed to recognize that she was nothing but "Vashti" — her name alone — and that the royalty came to her only afterward, through him, since he was the king, and from him the royalty came to her; for royalty does not come to a female through her father, only through her husband. And all the more so, since when Belshazzar her father was killed and the kingdom of the Chaldeans was lost, she remained an orphan, poor and storm-tossed, for her father's house was destroyed, and her royalty came to her only through her husband. And she had no right to be haughty toward him by making her feast in the house designated for royalty — only in the house of the women. For behold, she is "Vashti the queen" — her royalty comes to her after her name — whereas he is "which belonged to king Ahasuerus" — for his kingship belongs to him in essence, and is not derived after anyone else; rather, his kingship precedes his name. And this is [the meaning of] "which belonged to king Ahasuerus." Moreover, even before he was called Ahasuerus he had royalty, for he was crown prince through his father, being the son of Darius — as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, that Darius killed Belshazzar and was made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans, and married off Vashti, his [Belshazzar's] daughter, to his own son. And the word "also" [in "Also Vashti the queen made a feast"] alludes further to teach that her feast resembled the king's feast in quality and quantity — that it, too, lasted seven days, and that she likewise invited [the wives of] all the officers, just as he invited all the officers — as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, that she reasoned: "If the officers rebel against him, their wives will remain here with me in the house as pledges." And it is also possible that it resembled the king's feast in that she, too, invited the women of our people, in order to cause them to sin, just as he did.

The Questions: Why did Vashti make a feast by itself, and [why] is it called "a feast for women"? And for what purpose does [the text] relate this and inform us of the place, that it was in the royal house? Also, "which belonged to King Ahasuerus" is superfluous. Also, one must understand the variations: why here, and in verses 11, 16, and 17, is she called "Vashti the queen" [name preceding title] — which indicates that her sovereignty was not from herself — whereas in verses 12 and 16 she is called "the queen, Vashti" [title preceding name]? Also — we have already explained on verse 1 that when Ahasuerus seized the whole kingdom, which had previously been under the scepter of Babylon and the rule of the Chaldeans, he took Vashti as his wife, and through this all [the nations] acknowledged his kingship, since the kingdom reached him as an inheritance through Vashti, who was heiress apparent to the throne. Now that he had conceived plans to rule an unlimited kingdom — on account of which he underwent all this great agitation, changing his throne to Shushan and making the feast as described above — he wanted to regard himself as though he had conquered these kingdoms by his sword and would rule over them by a strong hand, and he wanted the officers of the provinces to agree with him in this: that he would conduct his kingship without limitation and rule only according to his own will. Now, at this point, his marriage to Vashti seemed to him like a festering thorn in his eyes, for through his marriage to Vashti it appeared as though [the people] had accepted him of their own accord as king through Vashti's inheritance — and consequently his status would be like that of a king made by the people's choice, whose kingship is limited according to the laws and customs of the nations. He therefore devised plans and schemed to show that he had not taken Vashti on account of her lineage, and that it was not through her that he attained the kingship. For at the time he conquered the kingdom from the hand of Babylon, the kingdom of Babylon came to an end, and Vashti came into his hand as a captive of the sword — he took her not because of her lineage but only because of her beauty, and it was not through her that he came to the throne; rather, the opposite is true, that she is queen through him. In such a way it would not be correct to call her "the queen, Vashti," but only "Vashti, the queen," for her sovereignty is not from herself but comes through Ahasuerus, and her name precedes her queenship. And the first sign of this was in the feast that she made: for had she been heiress apparent to the throne, with him king through her, surely it would have been fitting that she too make a feast for the officers, since she is the principal one in the kingship — and also that the feast be in her own royal house, belonging to her in her own right, as one who reigns in her own right. But this was not so; rather, [she made only] "a feast for the women," because [Ahasuerus] had determined that her essential status was [that of] "Vashti the queen," whose name precedes her queenship, and whose sovereignty comes only through him — therefore she made only a feast for the women, not for the officers and the peoples. And this is the second [sign]: that the feast was only in the royal house "which belonged to King Ahasuerus," in a manner that indicates that she has no royal house of her own, and that the kingship belongs to him alone.

"Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women, etc." (verse 9). It should have said only, 'And Vashti the queen made a feast for the women,' but Scripture comes to say that Vashti the queen made a feast just like King Ahasuerus — and one should not say that Vashti merely took from what was made for the king's feast; rather, she too made a feast by herself, just like Ahasuerus — this one also, meaning that there was no deficiency whatsoever in her feast. And it says "a feast for the women," meaning a feast fitting for women — for an abundance of wine is not fitting for women, since that is certainly not fitting for them; rather, she made for them the things that are fitting for women, the things that women love most. And it says "the royal house which belonged to the king" — and one should not say that it is not fitting for a commoner to enter the house that belongs to the king. Moreover, women have no connection to royalty. Nevertheless, the feast was made there, since the whole feast was meant to display the greatness of the king; therefore this is no disgrace to the king, since the entire feast was for the king's honor. And in the Gemara (Megillah 12a): "Also Vashti the queen [etc.] in the royal house" — it should have said 'in the house of the women.' Rabbi Abbahu said: this teaches that both of them intended [to engage in] illicit matters. That is what people say: 'she is busy with the gourd, and he with the lamp.' End of quote. And he means to say that she made the feast in the house of King Ahasuerus and not in the house of the women, so that she would be close to him, and the men and the women would be able to be secluded together at every hour. And this matter is called "illicit," since it took place in view of everyone, for this is utmost licentiousness. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 3:9): "Also Vashti" — also the feast (mashtuta) of Vashti; the time had come for Vashti to be cut down, the time had come for Vashti to be harvested, the time had come for Vashti to be trodden. Rabbi Chanina says: the time had come for Vashti to die, as you say (Genesis 3:6), "and she gave also to her husband, and he ate." End of quote. This Midrash was troubled by the fact that Scripture should not have said "Also Vashti the queen," but rather, 'And Vashti the queen also made a feast.' Therefore they expounded that Scripture wrote this term "gam" [also], because it is a term of removal and uprooting, from the language of 'gomem' [to cut down]. And the name "Vashti" is, in every place, a term of foundation (yesod), as in (Psalms 11:3), "For the foundations are destroyed." And because nothing remained of the kingdom of Babylon except Vashti, and now she was lost, concerning this they said, 'the time has come to cut down her foundation,' so that nothing would remain of the kingdom of Babylon once Vashti was killed. And as for what they said (Esther Rabbah 3:9), that the time had come for her to be harvested and trodden: just as the owner of the vineyard waits until the time of the harvest arrives, and then he harvests and treads, so too Hashem, blessed be He, was waiting for the kingdom of Babylon, until the time came to uproot them; therefore it says that the time had come for her to be trodden and harvested. For the kingdom of Media was specifically destined to nullify the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar entirely — that is, the kingdom of Babylon — just as Darius killed Belshazzar. Therefore, at this feast, in which the greatness and might of the kingdom of Ahasuerus reached its utmost, the time arrived for the wicked kingdom of Babylon to be uprooted entirely, so that no remnant or survivor would be left of them, and for the mashtuta — that is, the foundation of the kingdom of Babylon — to be uprooted. And this is the meaning of "gam Vashti" [also Vashti]. And Rabbi Chanina held that Scripture wrote "gam" [also] for this reason: because this term indicates death, which is absence. This is because absence begins to take hold in one part, and then extends to another as well, once it has begun with the first — even though it did not begin with this other one, nevertheless, once it has begun, it already extends to the other as well. And therefore absence — that is, death — took hold of Eve, the wife of Adam, when she ate from the Tree of Knowledge (Genesis 3:6), and from her, death extended to her husband as well; therefore it is written, "and she gave also to her husband." For this reason, this term "gam" alludes here as well: just as death was decreed upon her father, this total absence extended afterward also to his daughter Vashti — that is, absolute absence. And further, in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 3:9): "Also Vashti, etc." — "gam" [also] indicates nothing but an increase; just as he [Ahasuerus made his feast] with six wonders, so she too made hers with six wonders — namely, that she showed them one treasury each day, just as Ahasuerus did, showing treasuries, one treasury each day, as was explained above, and she too did the same. And this matter is not fitting for a woman, for every woman ought to be drawn after the king her husband; and King Ahasuerus made this feast in order to display his glory (above, verse 4) — this queen ought not to have displayed a distinct importance of her own; rather, it was fitting that she be secondary to the importance of the king, and that the importance belong to him alone. And this matter caused her to rebel against the king, and this matter was the beginning of her being put to death, because she was not drawn after the king. And do not say that Vashti's rebellion came about because she too was merry at the feast, and it is the way of a person, when he is merry, to have haughtiness of heart, and therefore she rebelled against her husband. For this is not so; rather, in the very essence of the feast she was separate from her husband, for she was not drawn after her husband, that is, Ahasuerus, in the matter of the feast at all; therefore she came to this, that she rebelled against him completely. And it appears to say that she was called "Vashti" from the term 'shtayim' [two], for she was not one, but two. For the king, her husband, was of Media, and by virtue of the king, who was of Media, Vashti was reckoned as being of the nation of Media. But because this woman was not like another woman — for another woman is drawn entirely after her husband, so that it would be fitting for her to be entirely of the nation of Media — she, rather, was also reckoned as being of the Chaldeans, so that there were two aspects in her: she was reckoned as being of the nation of Media, and — being the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar — of the nation of the Chaldeans, and there were two in her. And a vav is required to join her to her husband; therefore, in this name there is a connecting vav at the head of the name. But another woman joins herself to her husband on her own, whereas this one required a joining. And for this reason, when this mishap came upon Vashti, he sent out (below, verse 22) the decree "that every man should rule in his own house, and speak according to the language of his people," so that it would no longer be as Vashti did, who was separated from her husband and was not reckoned as being of Media, and for this reason she rebelled against her husband. So it appears. And according to this it is also correct that it says, "Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women [in] the royal house which belonged to King Ahasuerus" — coming to say that she made the feast "[in] the royal house which belonged to King Ahasuerus" because, in her mind, she was equal in importance to King Ahasuerus, in that she was of royal descent, whereas Ahasuerus was not of royal lineage. And she said: the king is only a king, but he is not of royal lineage; whereas she is not a king in title, but she is of royal lineage — therefore she is equal to him. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 3:10): "[in] the royal house which belonged to King Ahasuerus" — she placed them in her ispalodah, so that if the husband of one of them should rebel, his wife would be within, and she would not rebel. End of quote. And the explanation of this is that she therefore made the feast in the royal house, because the royal house is within, so that if one of the officers should rebel, his wife would be in his hand. And they explain further in the Midrash (ibid.), that Scripture wrote "the royal house which belonged to King Ahasuerus" to teach that she placed them in spacious houses, because it is the way of a woman to be prone to mischief. The explanation is that Scripture therefore wrote "the royal house," which is spacious, because it is the way of women to engage in mischief, so that they would not be together, for this matter is a disgrace and a shame. And they said further in the Midrash (ibid.): "the royal house" — Rabbi Abba said: a woman prefers decorated linens over eating fattened calves. And he means to say that ornamented things give them the greatest pleasure. Therefore Scripture does not praise Vashti's feast for an abundance of eating and drinking, but only for the fact that they sat in a pleasant, decorated place, and this gave them greater pleasure. For the power of imagination is dominant in a woman, and decorated things pertain to the power of imagination; therefore the woman derives the greatest pleasure from this.

On the seventh day. Our Rabbis said that it was on Shabbos. — Notes: (22) Maseches Megillah 12b. (23) Corresponding to “the seventh day” of the week.

"Ke-tov lev ha-melekh" (when the heart of the king was merry) — a verb, past tense, singular, from the same root as 'mah tovu ohalekha' (how goodly are your tents) (Numbers 24:5). "Charvona" — many have interpreted [the name to allude to] 'the sword of Haman, swiftly,' for [the syllable] 'na' is like [the word] 'now.' There is also [a view] in the Midrash that he was Elijah, and the reasoning is that [the word] 'tov' (good) is juxtaposed [to his name], and he acted in the manner of Elijah. But the truth is that these names mentioned in the Megillah are Persian — so too Memuchan; and 'Esther' is a translation of 'Hadassah.' And were these names Hebrew, we would not be able to know their meaning, for names are not found according to one single pattern — for behold, in [the name] 'Beriah,' the bet is not a root letter; they said [it is from] 'be-ra'ah' (in evil) (1 Chronicles 7:23); and [the name] 'Noach' is from 'yenachamenu' (he will comfort us) (Genesis 5:29); and [the name] 'Shmuel' is from the root of 'sha'ul' (asked/borrowed), as I shall explain in its place. And the king commanded that the beauty of the queen be displayed — this too was the custom of the land of Edom. And it is possible that Vashti belonged to a nation whose custom it was for the women to conceal themselves, or that she thought he was drunk.

This teaches the foolishness of this king: that he did not err through drunkenness, but merely because his heart was merry he said, "to bring..." etc. — which was a great folly, all the more so according to our Rabbis of blessed memory, who said that he commanded that she be stripped naked and stood before him as on the day of her birth. Further, the verse teaches the difference between the righteous, the wicked, and fools like this king. This is what our Rabbis of blessed memory said regarding "And Haman said in his heart" — the wicked are in the power of their heart, [as with] "And Esau said in his heart," "And Jeroboam said in his heart," etc.; but the righteous — their heart is in their power, [as with] "And David said to his heart," etc. — they resemble their Creator, [as with] "And Hashem said to His heart." For the wicked person cannot overrule his heart, but rather is compelled to do whatever his heart desires, and comes to regret it once he sees that he has done evil. But the righteous person — if his heart devises iniquity, he forces it to the opposite of the evil deed, the opposite of what his heart desires. And this teaches, in this regard, that this king's heart led him astray: for as soon as his heart was merry with wine, he was immediately seduced and said to Mehuman, etc., to bring Vashti, etc. — meaning that he had no strength to reconsider that the matter was not good, and how much more so to strip her naked and stand her as on the day of her birth. This is taught by the words "when the heart [of the king] was merry," etc. — that he had no strength even to deliberate calmly whether the matter was good or bad, nor to disclose it to his advisers, whether to do it or refrain — rather, "when merry," etc., he said to Mehuman, for immediately he spoke to the messengers before taking counsel. In general, let us pay attention to the change of wording in these verses — this occurs on three occasions. First it says, "to bring Vashti the queen"; and afterward it says, "But queen Vashti refused" — reversing the words; and afterward it returns to the first formulation and says, "according to the law, what is to be done with Queen Vashti"; and afterward it again reverses the order: "Not against the king alone has Vashti the queen done wrong." Now, regarding this let us note something in the phrase "who ministered in the presence of Ahasuerus the king" — for the word "Ahasuerus" is superfluous, since it is clearly he who is being spoken of. Indeed, there is no doubt that the king was concerned lest she refuse, saying that she was a queen, daughter of great kings — as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, that she said: "I am a queen, daughter of great kings — daughter of Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar — and he [Ahasuerus] is my father's stable-groom." But he recovered himself, for he said in his heart that he himself was truly a king in his own right even before he was called by the name Ahasuerus — as we have written in the name of our Rabbis of blessed memory, that he was the son of Darius the Mede, who received the kingdom of Belshazzar, and took Vashti, his daughter, and married her to Ahasuerus his son; for he was of royal seed, and from his very birth royalty was attributed to him. This is what the verse alludes to in saying "the presence of Ahasuerus the king" — to say that therefore his heart was emboldened, and he said to Mehuman, etc. And lest she say that she too is the daughter of kings greater than he, therefore, when he sent for her, the text says, "to bring Vashti the queen" — meaning that royalty is not inherent to her, but is merely her name, like all the women of the world; for royalty does not cling to her from father to daughter, since the royalty she has is added to her, coming to her from his side, insofar as she is his wife. Therefore her name is placed before the title "queen." But she understood the implication of these words, and said — as our Rabbis of blessed memory said — that she was a queen, daughter of kings, meaning that in her own right she is a queen, apart from being the wife of King Ahasuerus. This is what is meant by "But queen Vashti refused" — that is, that royalty is primary to her, and the name is secondary to it. And it is possible that this very change of wording is what prompted our Rabbis of blessed memory to say that she claimed to be the daughter of kings, etc. — and this claim lodged in the king's heart, so that afterward, when he brought the matter before those who knew the times, it would incline him to acquit the queen, as will be explained, with God's help. Therefore, so that they would not sentence her to death, he said in his plea, "according to the law, what is to be done with Queen Vashti" — hinting at her being a queen in her own right, in order to acquit her in judgment. But Memuchan, who desired her death, answered and said, "Vashti the queen has done wrong" — to say that essentially she is not a queen, but that is merely her name, and the royalty is added to her name on account of the king; for the kingship of her father does not pass on to the daughter — in such a way that he is her master, and she deserves death, for she transgressed his word. Now let us return to the matter of the verse. The king foresaw three things: first, that she could excuse herself by saying that she is a queen, daughter of kings, in her own right, as we have written; second, that it would be utterly disgraceful to her honor for her to come before the peoples and the officials; third, that perhaps her beauty would not find favor in their eyes, and it would become an occasion to disgrace her and her husband — as our Rabbis of blessed memory said that she said as much. Therefore he came and addressed, in his message, the standing of all three concerns. Regarding the first, he said "to bring Vashti the queen," as we have written, for essentially she is defined by her name, and her royalty is from him. And regarding the second, he said "before the king" — meaning, she does not come before them, the peoples and officials, but before the king, who is the primary concern. And the proof is that she would come wearing the royal crown, for this ornament is worn only to come before the king, and not before the peoples and officials, who are secondary to the crown. And lest you say, has she not come before the king many times already? — the answer is that this time the purpose is only so that the peoples and officials would gaze and see her, for the eyes of the king had already had their fill of gazing upon her — in such a way that her coming there would be attributed to them, and not to him. Therefore it says "to show the peoples" and does not say "to see the peoples," etc. — meaning, the king says: "to me you shall come, and to me is attributed the showing of your beauty to them." And regarding the third, it says "for she was fair to look upon" — meaning, she, and none other — that is to say, do not fear, for you shall not be shamed. Now, our Rabbis of blessed memory said that he commanded to bring her naked. Since there is no hint of this matter in the verse, this teaching would seem to be like a strange thing. But it is possible that they focused their attention on the redundancy in the verse: for by saying "her beauty," it is already known that she is fair to look upon; and furthermore, the expression "fair to look upon" is a lesser expression than "her beauty" — and also, why did it change and not say "for she is beautiful," similar to saying "her beauty"? Indeed, the expression "fair to look upon" truly applies to the appearance of the face, but the expression "her beauty" includes the whole of her being. Therefore what he wished to display was her beauty in its entirety, for to see her face alone is nothing, since it is already known to all that she is fair to look upon — some by direct sight, and some by hearsay. Or, one might say: "to show her beauty" — meaning, that the beauty is inherent to her; and this is the meaning of "her beauty" — that is, beauty from her own self, and not from women's cosmetics. And this inherent beauty is found only in the body, for as for her face, it is already known that she is fair to look upon, but it is possible that this is by means of cosmetics applied to the face. So he commanded to display her beauty, in a manner that would make known that she is fair to look upon in her own right, and not from her adornments — and this can be verified only by seeing her naked. And accordingly we may say: since he was concerned about her disgrace and his own disgrace — that his wife should be shamed before the eyes of the peoples and officials — he therefore mentioned beforehand that she should come wearing the royal crown; for he did this as a counterbalance, so that whoever saw her in her degradation would not think lightly of her, since he would also see her greatness and her preciousness, in that the royal crown was upon her head.

The Questions: Where is there a greater folly than this — that so mighty a ruler would command that the wife of his bosom be brought to be displayed before the multitude of nations and the multitude of peoples, [merely] to show that she was beautiful of appearance — and all the more so according to the Sages' tradition that he commanded her to be brought naked. And it is all the more astonishing to consider the manner of her being brought, for it appears that he commanded that she be brought at once, against her will, by the hand of the chamberlains, as one brings some base woman, to the point that death was preferable to her over a life of disgrace and shame. Also, why does [the text] elaborate in this account with the names of the chamberlains, and explain [that they were] "who ministered in the presence of the king" — what need do we have for this information? "On the seventh day" — and in order to lay this down as a foundational principle and cornerstone, that Vashti has no share in the kingship, and that his kingship is due to conquest alone — so that thereby he would achieve his aim of ruling an unlimited kingdom — he acted shrewdly in commanding that Vashti be brought before him, to show that he had not taken her because of her lineage, but only because she was beautiful of appearance, and nothing more; for her royal lineage had come to an end at the time of the conquest. And he was clever in bringing this to light through five matters: 1. That he commanded Mehuman, etc. — the seven chamberlains — for if she had been considered a sovereign in her own right, how could they bring her by means of chamberlains? Surely it would have been fitting that all the officers of the kingdom go out to meet her. 2. That he also did not choose that she come by means of the chamberlains who served her, but rather by means of the chamberlains who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus — which is a great degradation before her, treating her as one of his concubines, whom his own chamberlains bring before him.

"On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine" (v. 10). This is difficult: why did it need to write "on the seventh day" — let it be whatever day it might be? It appears that [Scripture] comes to say that the entire matter of this Megillah was not by chance, but rather everything was exactly as it was fitting to be. For the seventh day was fitting for "the heart of the king to be merry": this very day was fitting, being the seventh, for [merriment] through wine. This is because "seventh" (shevi'i) is related to the word "satiation/completeness" (sevi'ah), since this number contains completeness and lacks nothing. We have explained this in several places: that the physical body has six sides — above, below, and the four directions — and yet it is still not "complete" (sheva), for it still needs a seventh, which corresponds to the middle point; then this number is "seven," corresponding to the six sides with the middle between them, and nothing more is lacking. Therefore Hashem, may He be blessed, completed His world on the seventh day, for then the world was complete and whole, with nothing more lacking. And above we explained that it was fitting for the completion of the feast to be on the seventh day, which is Shabbat, as [explained] there. But our Sages, may their memory be blessed, in the first chapter of tractate Megillah (12b), interpreted "On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry" — is it then the case that until the seventh day the heart of the king was not merry? Rava said: the seventh day was Shabbat, on which Israel eat and drink and begin [their talk] with words of Torah and words of song and praise. But the nations of the world, when they eat and drink, begin only with idle talk. So too at the feast of that wicked man: these said, "The Median women are comely," and those said, "The Persian women are comely." Ahasuerus said to them, "The vessel that I use is neither Median nor Persian, but Chaldean — do you wish to see her?" They said to him, "Yes, provided that she is naked." For with the measure that a man measures, he is measured. This teaches that the wicked Vashti used to bring the daughters of Israel and strip them naked, and make them do work on Shabbat. Therefore it was decreed against her that she be slaughtered naked on Shabbat, and this is [the meaning of] what is written (below 2:1), "He remembered Vashti, and what she had done, and what had been decreed against her." Now, our Sages too explain that the seventh day is fitting for completion — for if not, one could ask: why did this happen specifically on Shabbat? Is it because this incident teaches merit in favor of Israel? But surely this merit would exist even had it not been on Shabbat, since [the nations] eat and drink and begin to speak idle talk, and Israel does not do so. Rather, our Sages come to say that the seventh day is specifically designated for completion, and therefore it is said of it, "when the heart of the king was merry" — since the entire feast of King Ahasuerus was for the purpose of man being made complete, and the seventh day, which is Shabbat, is specifically designated for completion. And on this day the incident of Vashti occurred, when they said to bring Vashti before them (v. 11). For the ultimate completion of the nations is in physical/corporeal matters, since the nations are themselves corporeal; therefore when they arrive at their completion, they cling to the corporeal completely, to the point that "these said the Persian women are..." etc. But Israel's completion is the divine Torah, for each and every one's completion is according to what he is. And because of this, the killing [decree] of Vashti came about, for such a physical completion has deficiency (he'eder) attached to it, and that is the Satan, and so the incident of Vashti occurred. And to Israel salvation came through it, for this is Israel's completeness, and Israel's ultimate purpose is Hashem, may He be blessed, and therefore they have their existence from the side of Hashem, may He be blessed. But the nations, whose completeness is physical as we said, therefore deficiency clings to their completeness, which is the Satan — as happened here. For on this seventh day, in which was the ultimate completion of their completeness — when King Ahasuerus was made complete in his kingship and made a feast — in the completion of the feast the Satan took hold and the incident of Vashti occurred. Understand these matters very well. The general principle is this: Israel's ultimate purpose is the divine level (ma'alah elokit). Therefore, when they eat and drink, and are at their [state of] completion, they then seek to speak words of Torah, which is the completion of the divine intellect. But the nations, all of whose concerns are physical, when they are at the completion of their body then begin to speak of matters pertaining to that, and to this matter deficiency clings, which is the Satan. And this is fitting to be a cause of permanence for Israel, since they cling completely to the transcendent divine level (ma'alah ha-nivdelet), which has [inherent] permanence. And it is fitting that it bring deficiency to the nations of the world, whose ultimate purpose is the physical — and that is the opposite [i.e., the physical has no inherent permanence]. And as for what they said (Megillah 12b), that the wicked Vashti used to strip the daughters of Israel naked and make them do work on Shabbat, and therefore it was decreed against her that she be slaughtered on Shabbat, naked — this is because Shabbat deserves honor, as it is written (Isaiah 58:13), "and honor it by not doing your usual ways," and therefore a person is obligated to wear [special] clothing on Shabbat in honor of Shabbat. For man has the image of God (Genesis 1:26), and to him honor and importance are due because he has the image of God — and we have explained this matter elsewhere, that honor pertains to the image of God. And when she used to strip the daughters of Israel naked and make them do work, her intent was to demean Israel and to take honor away from them — for even on Shabbat, which deserves honor, she would strip them naked, and this is a complete abolition of honor. And she also made them do work, which is an abolition of the soul, since there is a death penalty for [performing] work on Shabbat. So that these two things — namely, the disgrace, which pertains to man's image, and the abolition of the soul — constitute abolition from the World to Come and abolition from this world. For the image of God is what prepares [a person] for the World to Come, and we have explained this matter in connection with [the teaching], "One who whitens [shames] his fellow's face has no share in the World to Come" (Bava Metzia 59a) — see the work Derech Chaim (ch. 2, mishnah 10), where it is explained. Therefore, when she made [Jewish] daughters do work on Shabbat while naked — meaning that they have no honor pertaining to the image of God, particularly on Shabbat, which alludes to the World to Come — the work on Shabbat was an abolition of the soul, since there is a death penalty for the work. Therefore the decree against her was that she be slaughtered naked on the day of Shabbat, for slaughter (shechitah) signifies the taking of the soul. And the fact that she was sentenced [to be] naked — this is the disgrace of the [divine] image, which is the level of the World to Come. Even though the pious of the nations of the world have a share in the World to Come, this decree was decreed against her, that she has no [share in] this world, and also no share in the World to Come. Therefore Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, when he [Nebuchadnezzar] sentenced them to be thrown into the fiery furnace, were sentenced [to be thrown in] with their cloaks (sarbaleihon). This is to say that even though he wished to take this world from them, nevertheless [they retained] the World to Come, for they had the honor that pertains to the image of God, by which a person has a share in the World to Come, as we have explained elsewhere. "When the heart of the king was merry with wine" (v. 10). And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 3:11): Rabbi Levi said, the nations of the world have no [true] good. They objected to him: but is it not written, "ke-tov [when good was] the heart of the king"? [He replied:] It is written "ke-tov" [as though good] — good and yet not [truly] good. But the good of Israel is complete good, as it is said (I Kings 8:66), "and they went to their tents joyful and of good heart" — thus far [the Midrash]. Now, some ask: how can it be said that they have no good, when indeed they do have good? But the explanation is this: complete good is not physical good, for physical good is not complete good — deficiency clings to it, which is evil. But the essential good is divine good. And such is the good of Israel: when they are joyful and of good heart, then the Shechinah rests upon them, for the Shechinah rests only through joy, and this is not so with the nations. Therefore the good of the nations is not true good, but only physical. But the true good is non-physical, like the good that will be in the future, which is not physical good but spiritual, as it is said (Psalms 31:20), "How abundant is Your goodness which You have hidden for those who fear You" — and this is clear. "He commanded Mehuman, Bizzetha, Harbona" (v. 10). Now you will find that the entire intent of Ahasuerus was that the earthly kingdom should be like the heavenly kingdom, and therefore he had seven chamberlains, corresponding to those above, namely: Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, the Moon — seven attendants. And these seven attendants each rules on its own day, as is known. So too here, each one was an attendant on his own day, as [rendered] in the Targum (here), that these seven attendants each served on his own day. And these upper attendants — there is in them an aspect by which they serve for evil. And when the decree for evil goes out from the Supreme King, then all seven upper attendants serve so that the decree comes to be evil. Therefore, with regard to Ahasuerus — of whom, whoever mentions him exclaims "woe" over his head (Megillah 11a) — they all served for evil, like Ahasuerus, who is evil. And therefore all seven names indicate evil, as their names indicate. For "a ruler who heeds falsehood — all his servants are wicked" (Proverbs 29:12). But the seven who saw the king's face (below, v. 14) — the matter is not so with them; rather they are like counselors who advise the king when there is here an aspect for good or an aspect for evil. And therefore they too were seven, and they argued in favor of Israel and against the nations of the world, as our Sages of blessed memory explained (Megillah 12b). And as for what they said there, that "Memuchan" (v. 14) is Haman — this will be explained in its place. Therefore the seven attendants are called "those who served in the presence of the king" (v. 10), corresponding to the act of agency, for they carry out the king's mission. And the seven "who saw the king's face" (v. 14) sit with him in counsel as to what to do. And when the decree goes out for evil, all seven act for evil. Therefore it is written, "who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus" — he is Ahasuerus, who is evil, and his attendants act for evil, as they acted here. But further on it is written (v. 14), "who saw the king's face," and it is not written "Ahasuerus" — for the king, insofar as he is king and seeks counsel, and the decree for evil has not [yet] gone out, they serve for good and for evil, each one according to what is fitting. But when the king [acts] for evil, then all seven are for evil. And so their names indicate: "Mehuman" from the language of "mehumah" (tumult), "Bizzetha" from the language of "bizui" (disgrace), and so too all of them, as you will find in the Targum of Yonatan ben Uziel (here), and this will be further explained shortly. "Bigtha and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas" (v. 10). By the fifth [name] a vav is written, and by the seventh [name] a vav is written, because it is customary to write a vav on the one that is last, and that vav refers back to all that precede it, as though a vav were written by each one. And sometimes the fifth is the last, for sometimes there are only five before the king, in which case the fifth is the last. And sometimes the seventh is the last, when there are seven before him. For it is the way [of things] to be sometimes five and sometimes seven. And Scripture comes to say that when the king is such that "a ruler who heeds falsehood — all [his servants] are wicked" (cf. Proverbs 29:12), this applies specifically when they are seven, for then the attendants are not so significant, and so they are drawn along to do his will, whatever the king, who is wicked, wishes. But when they are only five, they are more significant, since they are only five, and they are not drawn along after the opinion of the wicked king; therefore the vav is on the fifth, to say that they are all as one. And had it written the vav on the fifth alone, one might have thought that specifically when they are not many, but only five, they need to be drawn along after the opinion of the king, and are like him; but when there are seven, they are not drawn along after the king, since they are so many. Therefore it is written on the seventh, too, a vav, which joins them together, [teaching] that in this respect too they are all equal, and of one mind for evil when the ruler is evil. But according to the plain sense, it appears that the vav is on the fifth and on the seventh to say that these five, up to "and Abagtha," which is written with a vav, were the ones who served in the presence of the king for most matters. And when the king wished to add [attendants] for whatever matter he wished — as is the way [of kings], for sometimes he wishes to add to his attendants — these seven were then the ones serving in the presence of the king.

The questions: "before the king" is superfluous — and why did it not say, "to bring Vashti with the royal crown before the king," since surely she would put on the crown before she came before the king? "to bring" — 3. that he commanded them "to bring" [her] — for the expression shows that they were to bring her against her will, like one of his maidservants. 4. That he commanded that they bring her in such a way that everyone would know that they were bringing "Vashti the queen," and not "the queen, Vashti" — for from her coming before the king, all the peoples would know that her queenship was not inherently her own; and this was accomplished by having them bring her before the king "with the royal crown," meaning that she would not don the crown until she came before the king. And it means: "before the king" — at the time she would be before him, then she would be wearing the royal crown, and not before that. And by this all would recognize that it was not fitting for her to wear the crown while she was by herself, for she is a commoner. 5. The ultimate aim of his desire was to show the peoples and the princes that he had not taken her for her lineage, but only for her beauty, for she was fair to look upon — for had he taken her for her lineage, and because through her he attained the kingship, it would not be fitting to display her beauty; for whether she were beautiful or ugly, he would have taken her, since together with her he had taken hold of the portion of the kingdom. And would this not be a disgrace to the provinces, to display her beauty, as if her beauty were more significant than the kingship he attained through her? But by this he revealed that he did not regard her as queen in her own right, and that he had attained the kingship by himself, through his own strength and might. And by this he wished to achieve his desire to reign an unlimited kingship.

"to bring Vashti the queen, etc." (verse 11). And afterward it is written (verse 12), "But Queen Vashti refused" — this is because the king had granted her the honor of royalty, whereas originally she was not a queen. For the kingdom of Belshazzar was entirely removed when he was killed, and Hashem, blessed be He, annulled his kingship; therefore she was not a queen. Afterward, through King Ahasuerus, to whom she was married, she became queen. Therefore it is written "Vashti the queen" — with the word "queen" placed at the end — to say that it was when Ahasuerus married her that she became queen. But afterward it is written "the queen Vashti refused" — meaning that she said she had been a queen all her days, and had not received her royalty from Ahasuerus. Therefore it is written "the queen, Vashti" [with "queen" first] — for she said that she was of importance equal to the king, and therefore she need not come to him as the king had commanded. Furthermore, in "to bring Vashti" the word "the queen" is juxtaposed to the word "the king," for it is written "to bring Vashti the queen before the king" — meaning that she was queen before the king. But in "but she refused," the word "Vashti" is juxtaposed to the word "king," for it is written "But Queen Vashti refused to come before the king" — [meaning] that she said she was queen without Ahasuerus, and indeed, on the contrary, from the king's side it is like that of a commoner. For she said that Ahasuerus, even though he is now king, is nevertheless a commoner, and became king through himself. But Vashti is herself the daughter of kings, and therefore she is queen in her own right, while from Ahasuerus's side there is, as it were, an aspect of commonness. "to bring, etc." (verse 11). It says "to bring Vashti," and does not say that they should tell Queen Vashti to come before the king; rather, it says that he gave them the power to bring her against her will. For it was said, lest she offer some excuse for why she did not wish to come before the king, and regarding this it says that they should bring the queen before the king, and they have power in the king's stead, as if the king himself were there. Therefore it is written, "But the queen refused to come at the king's word conveyed by the chamberlains" (verse 12) — meaning to say that she certainly gave a reason for her words, [explaining] why she did not wish to come, and the chamberlains said that the king had given this power into the hand of the chamberlains. And so too it says afterward (verse 15), "who did not perform the command of King Ahasuerus conveyed by the chamberlains." Had it said that they should tell Vashti to come, this would imply that they were merely messengers who would tell her the king's word, and if so, if she gave some reason for her words for not coming, they would have no further power [to compel her]. And it says "to bring Vashti before the king" — whereas it should have said, "to bring Vashti to show the peoples her beauty." Rather, its meaning is that she should come before the king to be enjoyed by him in a manner of licentiousness and desire. Therefore it is not written "to bring Vashti in the royal crown before the king," but only that he desired her for the sake of his lust. And it says "to show the peoples and the princes her beauty" — for to the peoples, every woman is beautiful in their eyes, since they are not so accustomed to beauty. And therefore it also says "and the princes," even though they were accustomed to beautiful women. And it does not say "to show the princes" alone, because the princes are not numerous, and it is possible that, according to the majority [of them], she would not be [considered] beautiful. Therefore it says "to show the peoples" — for according to the majority she is beautiful, since the peoples are very numerous, and in the eyes of all of them she is beautiful. And it says "to show her beauty" — and why is this needed? Rather, it comes to say that she is fit to be queen, for beauty in particular is fitting for a queen, as it is written (Isaiah 33:17), "Your eyes shall see the king in his beauty." And Ahasuerus meant to say that everything that belongs to him is entirely fitting for royalty, and this is the greatness of his kingship, and this is what he wished to show. And because one might perhaps say that even though she was very beautiful, perhaps her form was not good, therefore it says "for she was fair to look on." And so her appearance was beautiful, such that the beauty is fitting for royalty as we have said, as it is written "Your eyes shall see the king in his beauty."

Queen Vashti refused. Our Rabbis said because leprosy broke out on her, so that she should refuse and be executed. Because she would force Jewish girls to disrobe and make them do work on Shabbos, it was decreed upon her to be stripped naked on Shabbos. — Notes: (24) Ibid. Vashti did not refuse out of modesty. She was as lewd as her husband and would have attended had she not broken out with leprosy. Another opinion is that the angel Gavriel caused her to grow a tail. (25) This punishment was in the form of מדה כנגד מדה, just as she had done, so it was decreed upon her. (Maseches Megillah 12b) Angered. Because she sent him words of insult. — Notes: (26) And that is why the king was extremely angered. (Maseches Megillah 11b)

"To come at the word of the king" — because of this, 'the king was very wroth, and his anger burned in him' — the meaning is that it increased like fire.

Behold, aside from the mad folly of the evil nature of this mission — sent to bring her to disgrace — he acted foolishly in three matters mentioned in the preceding verses. First, that when this evil thing arose in his heart, he did not take counsel — neither with himself, deliberately, nor with others — to see whether it was good or bad, and especially concerning such a matter, in which regret is common. Second, that he did not send to her saying that she should come with her maidens, in the manner befitting a queen such as herself, or at least with her own chamberlains who attend upon her — and not with the chamberlains designated to serve the king, for it is not in keeping with her honor that she come like a captive, in the hand of the messengers of her husband, his servants. Third, that he did not send to request of her that she come to the king as one coming willingly and by choice, but rather ordered that they bring her like a king's servant or maidservant, whom the king commands to be brought, whether with her knowledge or without her knowledge. These three matters he mentioned above: the first, in saying "when the heart of the king was merry" etc. — for without deliberation, but merely in the merriness of his heart, he immediately said, etc.; the second, in saying "to Mehuman" etc., "who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus"; and the third, in saying "to bring Vashti" etc., and not saying that Vashti should come with them. Now, aside from her argument which we mentioned — that she is a queen in her own right, for she is the daughter of a king, as is hinted in the words "and Queen Vashti refused" — she was also bold-faced regarding these three matters, and this is [the meaning of] "to come at the king's word," meaning that there was only the word of the king that had gone out of his mouth, and perhaps upon deliberation he would reconsider, for he had asked a harsh thing, for the matter was evil and bitter, and he would regret it afterward — therefore she did not come merely on the strength of a light word. And concerning the second, it says "by the hand of the chamberlains," which hints at two things: first, that it was not with her maidens but by the hand of the chamberlains; and also, not with her own chamberlains, but with the aforementioned known chamberlains designated for the king, who attend upon him — and this is [the meaning of] "the chamberlains," with the definite article. And the third is hinted at in the word "by the hand of," that it was not dependent on her choice, but rather "by the hand of the chamberlains," that she be handed over into their hands, that they should bring her. "And the king was very wroth" — for his will was not done before so many peoples, and especially since he would say in his heart: how will his words be heeded before the peoples and the officers and the princes of the provinces before him, who are the kings of the districts, seeing that they saw that the king does not rule in his own house? But lest you say: is it not, on the contrary, fitting that the king should not be foolish, and should consider and see that his evil request was as harsh as Sheol [i.e., impossible to satisfy], and what woman would heed him in this matter, for all her honor is [in being] a king's daughter within [the palace] — and how much more so according to our Sages of blessed memory, who said that he commanded that she be presented naked and bare as on the day of her birth, before the king and the officers — and what woman would put herself thus, not before them, nor even before commoners who sit at the king's table, and all the people found in Shushan the capital? On the contrary, he ought to feel gratitude toward her that she did not come! Why then was he so very wroth, seeing that he had asked improperly? To this, [Scripture] answers: "and his anger burned within him," and this is the matter [discussed] by our Sages of blessed memory in Genesis Rabbah on the verse "Hashem avenges and is master of wrath" (Nahum 1:2), which they explained thus: His attribute, may He be blessed, is not like that of a king whose wrath overpowers him, such that it does to him — causes him to do — that which is not good, and he regrets it afterward; and also, a man, even while seeing in the doing of the thing that it is not good, cannot restrain himself, because his wrath overpowers him. But He, may He be blessed, is not so; rather, although He is "avenging," He is also "master of wrath" — meaning, master and lord over wrath, ruling over it so that it does not cross the line of the good and the upright in its action. And this is what is said here: that this king was [merely] a man, and was a foolish king — for even though it was not beyond him that he had asked improperly, still he became very wroth, because he was not like the King of the universe, may He be blessed, who is "master of wrath"; rather, his anger burned within him and overpowered him, and he could not restrain himself against it. Alternatively, one might say — as we scrutinize the word "vachamato" ("and his anger") with a vav, and it does not say "for his anger burned within him," which would give the reason for his being so very wroth, and also the word "bo" ("within him") — that behold, he was very wroth because it was said that his will was not done; but then his heart returned to him, and he reflected that indeed the fault of the matter was not upon her, but upon himself, for he had asked so harshly, like a wild ass, that his wife should be disgraced before the eyes of the peoples and the officers and all who were present in Shushan the capital, from the greatest to the smallest. Therefore, corresponding to the wrath he felt because his will was thwarted, his anger burned within him, against himself — he said in his heart: I myself have brought about this intense disgrace of mine — and this is [the meaning of] "and his anger burned within him." Therefore his heart turned to acquit her; yet there was no room for him to act on his own initiative, to declare that the justice was with her and that he forgives his honor — for he had asked improperly, and this would be a shame and a disgrace to him, to lower himself before a woman. And after she had disgraced him, he would then have to bear with her and wait upon her, and the peoples and officers would despise him in their hearts, and she too would no longer esteem him and would despise him in her heart. Therefore his innermost counsel advised him to bring his case before the wise men, and to arrange his arguments in a way that would acquit her according to the law, and this would gather in his disgrace, for he would say that the law compelled him, and the retention of the beautiful woman with him would be in an honorable manner, according to the law which the teachers would instruct him. Alternatively, it may be said that [the meaning of] "and his anger burned within him" is that it did not go forth from him to an extraordinary degree and outward, to act in vengeance immediately in his anger, but remained within him — contained within itself — and by this the king had the restraint to ask the wise men what should be done according to the law. It is fitting to raise a question about what he said to them: if it is "according to the law, what should be done," then let it simply say, "And the king said to the wise men who knew the times, according to the law, what should be done," etc. — it should not need to add, "for such was the king's manner," etc. And the whole verse, "[and] the one near to him," does not seem relevant nor pertain to the matter at all — for what concern is it of ours to know who was "near to him," and who were the seven princes of Persia and Media who sat first in the kingdom? For this reason, our Sages of blessed memory needed to say that these names hint at the statement of the ministering angels before Him, may He be blessed, [reading] "Carshena" as if to say, "Have the Persians ever offered before You year-old lambs (karim benei shanah)?" etc., as we shall explain further, with God's help. Furthermore, the word "and he said" etc. indicates that he brought her case before all who knew the times, who judge according to the time and season — so how can it say "for such was the king's manner" before all who knew law and judgment, who judge according to the law? Furthermore, the word "ha-karov" ("the one near") is in the singular. And furthermore, the word "kedat" ("according to the law"), with a shva under the kaf, is a construct form bound to what follows it, and this is not correct here — rather it should properly be vocalized with the kaf under a patach. And furthermore, if he came to bring her case before the judges, why does he magnify her titles by saying "Queen Vashti"? Also, it says "ba-malkah" ("concerning the queen") and not "la-malkah" ("to the queen"), as in the expression "thus shall judgment be done to him" (ya'aseh lo), and it does not say "ya'asu vo" ("they shall do to him"), as in the expression "thus shall be done to the man." And also, [the fact] that he informed them "concerning that which she did not do," etc., appears superfluous, for the matter was already known to them, since they were present there and were there [at the feast]. And likewise the phrase "King Ahasuerus" — since it is [implied that] his own mouth is speaking, why should he mention his own name? It would be proper to say "concerning that which she did not do, [namely,] my command" — and also the word "the king" here is superfluous. And likewise the phrase "by the hand of the chamberlains" [is superfluous]. Furthermore, regarding Memucan's response: the king asked appropriately, but he did not answer properly — for he asked "according to the law, what should be done," and Memucan answered by condemning her on account of the grave offense, which is not according to law. Now, in the Midrash our Sages of blessed memory said, concerning "for the matter of the queen has gone forth," etc.: Rabbi Shmuel said, "Even without this [reason], she deserved it (bela dadin havat tzericha)." This is because it was difficult for him [to understand why Memucan cited the effect on all women] — seeing that he set aside the honor of the king and the officers and made the main point instead the disgracing of husbands by their wives, etc. — so he answered that this [i.e., what Memucan actually said] is a second reason, [Rabbi Shmuel] saying: "apart from this that I have said, there is also another reason that she deserves [punishment]." And it is fitting to pay attention, according to the plain sense, to find a good reason for this argument of his, whether according to our Sages of blessed memory or otherwise. Furthermore, [the verse] says "be-omram" ("in their saying," masculine) whereas it ought to say "be-omran" ("in their saying," feminine) with a nun. Furthermore, [the verse] says "and this day shall [the ladies of Persia and Media] say," but does not state what they will say. Furthermore, the phrase "who have heard of the deed of the queen" does not sit well, and is also superfluous — for it ought properly to say only, "and this day shall the princesses of Persia and Media say... to all the king's princes." Furthermore, why does the preceding verse not say "this day" regarding "all the women," as it says regarding the princesses? Furthermore, the phrase "and there will be contempt and wrath enough" — for these are not of the same category: contempt is the wives' disgracing of their husbands, while wrath is the king's anger over the matter. But behold, we have written that the king's heart was inclined toward his wife, for she was very beautiful, and he was ashamed to say openly, before all the peoples and officers before him, that he was forgiving his honor — for this would be to him an effacement and a disgrace. Rather, he sought that she be acquitted according to the law, so that the law would serve him as a covering for his eyes, allowing him to say that it was not in his power to shed blood against the law. And see: there are two kinds of courts — one, those who judge according to the law; the second, those who judge according to the time and hour [circumstance]. Now, if he were to bring her case before judges who judge according to the law, he could save her life by means of the arguments he would arrange, as it says "according to the law, what should be done," etc., as will come [to be explained], with God's help. But before judges who judge according to the time, she has no chance of survival — for behold, at that time there were present before the king his officers and servants, the army of Persia and Media, the nobles, and the princes of the provinces, who are the kings of the districts. And there are two evils pertaining to that occasion: one, that the contempt with which she disgraced [him] extends to the king, the officers, and the peoples; the second, that which pertains to the king alone — for had the king summoned her in a place devoid of peoples and officers, only between him and her, she would be punished, but she would not be liable to death. However, in that she nullified his word in a place full of great men, officers and nations who witnessed his disgrace — which is the shaming of his honor — a very great shame would cover him, and she is thus liable to death for bringing him to this state. And furthermore, at that time the king was displaying his greatness and the honor of his wealth before his army and all his officers and servants, and especially the princes of the provinces, in order that his importance be magnified in their eyes, and all nations would serve him, and his kingship over them would be strengthened, as we have written above concerning the purpose of the feast and the display of wealth. But in this matter the opposite happened: all who saw his glory would despise him in their hearts, saying, "Behold, his wife disgraces him, and he does not rule in his own house — how should we regard him, that he should also rule and dominate over us?" And this is contempt and great wrath enough that atonement is withheld. Therefore, it was not fitting for the king to have her case judged before those who knew the times, for none among them could judge her case toward a remedy except according to law and judgment; yet it is the king's practice to conduct his judgments and cases through those who knew the times. Therefore the king acted cunningly, revealing his intention in an offhand, indirect manner — that he wished to have her judged according to the law — in order to incline those who knew the times and the officers close to him toward his opinion, so that they would seek out, through his wisdom, some side of merit for her, upon recognizing the king's will. And this is [the meaning of] "the king said to the wise men who knew the times": the statement which he said to them was that "for such was the king's manner," to be presented and stated to them before all who knew law and judgment — meaning, prior to all who knew law and judgment, for those who knew the times take precedence in judging the king's cases. And especially since "the one near to the king" is Carshena, who is the greatest among those who knew the times, and also Shethar, etc. — all of them together, the seven princes of Persia and Media who saw the king's face, who sat first in the kingdom — meaning, this case is fitting for them, for "who are near to me" but you? Meaning: and you shall judge it. However, there is one thing I ask of you: namely, make your judgment of her close to the law, so that the judgment according to the time will resemble the judgment of the law — and this is [the meaning of] "kedat mah la'asot," with the kaf under a shva; for if it were under a patach, it would appear that it was entirely according to the Torah and not according to the time at all. But this was not entirely to his liking, since it is not according to the law of the kingdom; rather, he asked that their judgment be "like the law, what should be done" — that whatever they would judge to do to her should appear as if according to the law — and this is [the meaning of] "kedat mah la'asot," and not entirely according to the time. And the reasons by which she might be acquitted: the first is because she is called "Queen Vashti" — meaning, that they should regard her in light of the fact that royalty is primary and foremost for her, being the daughter of kings — Belshazzar, Evil-Merodach, and Nebuchadnezzar — and her own personal name is secondary to her royal title, and this is why it says "Queen Vashti" and not "Vashti the Queen," as explained above. And in this manner he hinted to them that his intention was to punish her in a way that her royal status would remain intact for her, and not to remove her from the kingship — and certainly not to put her to death. And this is why it does not say "la-malkah" ("to the queen") but rather "la'asot ba-malkah" ("to do concerning the queen") — that whatever they would do to her would be done while she still retained her royalty. And the second reason is that she did not sin by an act of commission but by an act of omission — that she did not come — for this is not comparable to a sin of action; and this is [the meaning of] "because she did not do." And the third is that it was a sudden and improper thing that issued from the king's mouth, and it is the way of people, regarding an improper matter, to reconsider whether to do it or to refrain — and therefore her guilt is not so great if she did not carry out his bidding, for she said in her heart: perhaps he will reconsider what came out of his mouth and regret it, and though he is grieved now, he will be glad afterward and will be grateful to me afterward. And this is [the meaning of] "that she did not do the bidding of the king" — that it was a mere utterance devoid of prior thought, and second thoughts follow after his speaking. And the fourth is that he was the well-known Ahasuerus, who had been his father's stable-groom (ahurayreih de-avuha) — and this is [the meaning of the name] Ahasuerus. The fifth is that it was "by the hand of the chamberlains," and not with her maidens as befits her honor, or with her own chamberlains who attend upon her, but rather with the king's chamberlains — and this is [the meaning of] "by the hand of the chamberlains," [meaning] the known chamberlains of the king, as it says of Mehuman etc., "who served in the presence of the king." And the sixth is that he did not command concerning her that she come to him as one coming by choice to do his will, but rather that they should bring her, as one brings a lowly item from the battle-line over which the king has dominion — and this is what is meant by "by the hand of the chamberlains," that she should be handed over into their hands to be brought, and not accompanied like one with her own attendants. Behold, he arranged his arguments in a way that she would be acquitted in judgment and be remembered with mercy, for the king desired her life. Alternatively, the meaning of the verse "kedat mah la'asot" may be understood as follows: what I have summoned you for, you who know the times, is because such is the king's manner and practice — that a case comes to be judged before those who know the times before all who know law and judgment; but "kedat hu mah la'asot" — meaning, according to the law is what is fitting to be done — and not [merely] according to the practice of the times — concerning Queen Vashti, for the six reasons for her acquittal hinted at in the verse: one, that she is "Queen Vashti," and the five remaining, as mentioned previously. And therefore the kaf is not vocalized with a patach, for the intent is not toward any particular law — whether the law of Persia and Media or of other nations — but rather toward the existence of law [in general], meaning: according to law, without regard to whichever law it may be, is what is fitting to be done, and not according to the time, which is the judgment particular to those who know the times. And behold, our merciful God, who, even before the affliction, causes the remedy to blossom forth, aroused the spirit of Memucan, who stood ready to oppress us — for he himself would prepare the way for evil to come upon him [Haman], since through him Vashti would be put to death and Esther would come in her place, to return his recompense upon his own head.

The questions: What is stated, "to come at the king's word, which was by the hand of the chamberlains," implies that this was the reason she did not want to come; and also, understand the doubling: "and he grew wroth, and his anger burned in him." "and she refused" — he explains that the reason Vashti did not want to come was that she understood his intention, that he wished to bring her down from her rank — for she had thought until now that she had a share in the kingship by virtue of her ancestral inheritance. And so it says "and she refused," because in her own opinion she was "the queen Vashti," whose queenship was her own; therefore she did not want to come, for two reasons: 1. "at the king's word" — because he had commanded that she come in a manner that would show that she had no share in the kingship, and that she would not wear the crown before coming before him. 2. "which was by the hand of the chamberlains" — that he commanded that she be brought by means of the chamberlains, which was intended as a disgrace and a provocation. Now by this she nullified his entire scheme, for he wanted to hold the kingship in his own right, and she stood against him, saying that his kingship had sprung only from her. And concerning this, "and the king grew very wroth" — meaning that there is a difference between qetzef (wrath) and cheimah (anger/heat): qetzef is expressed openly, while cheimah indicates the retention of the grievance in the heart, without its being revealed from the lips outward. And here there were two matters: 1) the open wrath, over her refusal to carry out his command, which was in public; 2. the inner heat that burned in his heart, because through her, all his plans and everything he had labored for until now with the feast — in order that he might reign over an unlimited kingdom — had now come to nothing. And since this he could not declare, because these schemes were hidden in his heart, he did not display this wrath, but rather "his anger burned in him."

"But the queen Vashti refused" (verse 12). In the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 3:14): '"But the queen Vashti refused"' — she sent word to him, saying things that touched his heart. She said to him: If they see that I am beautiful, they will set their eyes on me to make use of me, and they will kill you. And if they see something indecent in me, then you are disgraced through me. She hinted to him, but he did not take the hint; she needled him, but he was not stung. She sent and said to him: You were the stable-master (comes stabuli) of my father's house, and you were accustomed to bringing before you naked harlot women, and now that you have entered into kingship you have not turned back from your corruption. She hinted to him, but he did not take the hint; she needled him, but he was not stung — thus far [the Midrash]. According to this Midrash it would seem that at first she sent to him, by hint, [words] to persuade him that she should not come, and he did not accept the words she sent him. The Sages expounded this because the word "vatema'en" [she refused] implies that she was not sending him words of disgrace, but only [expressing] that she did not want to come. And since it is written "and his wrath burned in him," one cannot say anything but that she [ultimately] sent him words of disgrace — for since it is not the way of a queen to appear thus before the king, even if [her mere refusal] were considered [an affront] against the king, still, for [the text] to say "his wrath burned in him" on that account alone would not be fitting. Therefore one must say that at first she did not send him any words of disgrace at all, but only words that touch a person's heart. And after the king was not won over by this, she sent him words of disgrace. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 3:14): '"But the queen refused"' — Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: When the Holy One, blessed be He, judges the wicked in Gehinnom, He judges them only naked. That is to say, this is a total loss, even regarding the World to Come. For [being] naked means the negation of the honor of the [divine] image, which is what prepares a person for the World to Come — as we wrote above regarding Vashti, that she would strip the daughters of Israel naked and make them do work on Shabbat (Megillah 12b), to indicate that they would have neither this world nor the World to Come, as [explained] above. And so it was done to her: it was decreed that she be slaughtered naked on Shabbat, and this was a total loss for her, to the point that she was lost from this world and from the World to Come. And this indicates that she was slaughtered naked, as we explained above. Now this is difficult: even though Ahasuerus was wicked, nevertheless he was a king who reigned from one end of the world to the other (Megillah 11a) — how could a man do such a disgraceful act, to bring his wife naked? Is this something a person in the world would do? Is it not a disgrace to his kingship? And all the more so, when he was making a feast such as this for his own honor and glory — would he, at his feast, which was meant to display his honor, do such a disgraceful act? And it is further difficult: we say that Ahasuerus was modest, as it is written (below 2:14), "In the evening she would come, etc." Therefore it appears that one must interpret "naked" as naked of royal garments, and this is because it is not fitting for a queen to come before commoners in royal garments, for this is a disgrace to the monarchy. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 3:13): Rabbi Pinchas and Rabbi Chama bar Guria said in the name of Rav: She sought to enter even with a small ornament, like a harlot, and they did not permit her. He said to them, "Then naked." She said, "Let me enter without a crown." They said, "She will [look like] a maidservant." "Let her wear royal garments and enter." Rav Huna said: A commoner does not make use of royal garments. Now this is difficult: how could they say "let her wear royal garments and enter," when Ahasuerus's intent was only that she be naked? Therefore, from this Midrash one can prove that Ahasuerus's intent in bringing her naked was not for lechery, to gaze upon her; rather, they wanted her not to be wearing royal garments, because if royal garments are upon her, it weakens the king's monarchy, but when royal garments are not upon her, they do not weaken the honor of his monarchy, and on this account she could come before them. For it is not fitting for a queen to come before a commoner while she is in her full royalty — that is, when she is wearing royal garments. Therefore they said that royal garments should not be upon her, because at the moment when she is not wearing royal garments it is as though she is not queen, and therefore this is no disgrace to the monarchy. But if royal garments had been upon her, it would have been a disgrace even to King Ahasuerus for the queen to come before commoners, and it is a disgrace to the entire monarchy when they conduct the monarchy in the manner of a commoner. But when she is naked of royal garments, then the monarchy is not with her at that time, and therefore she may come before them. Even though the royal crown is upon her, the crown indicates only a sign that she is queen, but it is not the honor of the monarchy, for the garments are the honor of the monarchy, as above. Thus this interpretation appears [correct]. And this proves that when it says "naked," it means only naked of her garments, which are royal garments — for if it meant literally naked, what use would a small ornament from the royal garments be? Would that be any kind of covering? Rather, it means naked of royal garments, and she requested that a small ornament from the royal garments be upon her, so that some royal garments would be seen upon her. But they did not permit her, for their intent was that she come naked, since at that moment it would be as though she is not queen, and it would be fitting for her to come before commoners. Therefore they said that she requested a small ornament of royalty, and they did not permit her, [insisting] rather that she be entirely naked of the garments of honor. She likewise requested to enter without a crown, for then, too, it would appear as though she is not queen at all. And they said, if so, they will say, "This is a maidservant," and this is certainly a disgrace, when there is no sign upon her that she is queen, but [she appears] a complete commoner. Then they said, "Let her wear royal garments" without a crown, and this too is as though she is not queen. And concerning this they said, "A commoner does not make use of royal garments" — for when the crown is not upon her it is as though she is a commoner, and royal garments are not fitting for her; therefore she may not enter without a crown, but rather she should enter naked of royal garments, while the crown is upon her, which is the sign that she is queen. And one should not object: when the crown is upon her but royal garments are not, would they not also say, "A commoner does not make use of royal garments"? This is no difficulty, because when the crown is upon her, she is certainly queen, only she is not in her honor when royal garments are not upon her. Therefore there is also no concern even if she comes before the officials [in that state]. And it has been explained that what they said, "let her enter naked," meant nothing other than that royal garments, as befit a queen, should not be upon her, and this is called "naked" — when she is naked of royal garments. And in the Gemara (Megillah 12b): '"But the queen Vashti refused"' — since she was behaving licentiously (for the Master said: both of them intended a matter of transgression), why did she not come? Rabbi Yosei bar Chanina said: This teaches that tzara'at broke out on her. In a baraita it was taught: Gabriel came and made her a tail. "[And the king was very wroth,] and his anger burned in him" — what was it that she sent him, that wrath flared up in him and spread? Rava said: She sent him this message: "Son of my father's stable-hand! My father would drink wine in the presence of a thousand and not become drunk, but this man becomes deranged from his wine." Immediately, "his anger burned in him." It was difficult for them [the Sages]: why did she not come? For if this alone were the reason — that she was particular about her importance and her standing — nevertheless, since her own intent, too, was toward licentiousness and lechery, why did she not come? And on account of [the fact] that this would diminish her standing, she would not have refrained from coming, for she too surely desired lechery, and licentiousness was pleasing to them [both]. Regarding this they said that tzara'at broke out on her. And specifically tzara'at, which comes in the blink of an eye, as we find with Uzziah, that in the blink of an eye tzara'at broke out on his forehead. And in the Yerushalmi it is derived by a gezeirah shavah [verbal analogy]: for here it is written (below 2:1), "that was decreed against her," and there it is written (II Chronicles 26:21), "[and he dwelt in a separate house, being a leper], for he was cut off from the House of Hashem" — and therefore they specifically said tzara'at. And in a baraita it was taught (Megillah 12b) that Gabriel came and made her a tail. The explanation of "tail" stated here is that the angel gave her a heaviness of nature, for the tail is the heaviness of a living creature, and it is an addition that drags after the living creature. Therefore she did not want to come, because of this "tail" — meaning the heaviness of nature that came upon her at that time. For a person sometimes has a heaviness of nature, and this nullifies a person's movement, so that he does not want to rise from his place. And know that the one who said tzara'at broke out on her holds that this is a defect in the human image [tzelem], since the tzara'at broke out on her face, for a person has the image of a person in his face. And the one who said [the angel] made her a tail holds that this is the heaviness of nature, which is a defect in the material body, and this is called "he made her a tail." And the dispute between these two Sages concerns which is first and closer to receiving defect: according to the one who said tzara'at broke out, [it is] because the form, which is the image of God, is more readily prone to receiving defect. And according to the one who said [the angel] made a tail, he holds that the body is [more] prone and first to receive defect. And each of them has a rational basis [for his view]: that a thing which is lesser and lowly in itself, like the body, is therefore more prone to receive it. And therefore he said that "Gabriel came and made her a tail," meaning that he gave her a heaviness of nature, for the tail is the heaviness of a living creature, and the living creature must drag the tail after it, since it has no life-force of its own, and therefore it is the heaviness of the living creature. Therefore Gabriel gave her a heaviness, just as a person sometimes has, who does not want to rise because of the heaviness he has. And one should not object: was it because of a heaviness of nature that she was prevented from coming before the king? This is not a difficulty, for in any case she certainly would not have been drawn after the king as is fitting for a woman [toward her husband]. Rather, the difficulty was "since she was behaving licentiously, etc." — and when a person has a heaviness of nature, then he desires and seeks rest, and this nullifies licentiousness, and because of this she refused to come. And according to the one who said tzara'at broke out on her, he means that the defect of the body does not come as quickly as the defect of the face, which contains the image of God, and such a thing is quick to receive defect, for silk is quicker to receive damage than garments of hemp. For anything that is fine and pure, when some change comes upon it, is damaged immediately. And therefore tzara'at is quick to break out on a person's face, which is the image of God, fine and pure. And this is their dispute — understand these words very well, for they are clear matters. The general principle is: the tail is at the end of the living creature, and the face is the beginning. The beginning receives defect more, because of the fineness and importance in it, for a fine thing receives defect more [readily]. And the one who said [the angel] gave her a heaviness of the body [holds] that the body of a living creature, being the lesser [part], is prone by its own nature to receive defect, since it is lowly and base. And therefore he said that the angel came and made her a tail, for he introduced into her constitution an extra great heaviness, beyond the [normal] measure. But according to the plain sense, it appears that the reason she did not want to come is as we explained above: that Vashti, who was the daughter of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, did not want to be dragged after the king. And even if it had been only the king [who summoned her], it is possible that she would not have wanted to come; all the more so to come before the officials and the peoples who were sitting with him at the feast — this was a debasement for her. And so the language implies: "But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king's commandment by the chamberlains" — [for] had he sent after her one of the king's officials, his servants, this would have been only a notification that she should come to him, and he would not be insisting with [royal] force that she come before the king. But since he sent the seven chamberlains of the king, this was the force of the king, that he insists with force that she come; and therefore Scripture mentions these seven servants, who are the force of the king, and despite this she did not come.

For the king would thus place matters. For such was the king’s custom in every judgment, to present the matter “before all who were versed in procedural and legal concerns.” — Notes: (27) The Midrash states that Achashveirosh originally sought the advice of the Sages and asked them to judge Vashti. Realizing that judging Vashti would expose them to great danger, they opted to defer judgment by explaining to Achashveirosh that they were unfit to judge in a capital case. (Maseches Megillah 12b)

"Those who knew the times" — the wise men of the constellations [astrologers], or [those who knew] the times/events that had befallen the earlier kings.

The Questions: Who are "those who knew the times," and who are "those who knew law and judgment"? The meaning of this verse is difficult — what is the difference between "dat" (law/custom) and "din" (judgment)? And why does it say afterward "according to the dat, what should be done," and not say "according to the din"? "Then the king said" — From the king's words and from Memucan's response it is clearly evident that the king, despite all his wrath against her, wanted to acquit her, and "love covers all transgressions" (Proverbs 10:12). Now there is a difference between a judgment rendered between the king and one of his servants, and a judgment rendered among people generally, between a man and his fellow. For over the king's judgments there were appointed special judges called "those who knew the times" — these judges, in addition to needing to know the laws (datot) and the statutes of judgment, needed to know the times, so as to judge according to the hour and the season. For if someone sinned against the king while he sat on his royal throne, his punishment would be greater than if he sinned against him while passing from place to place; and all the more so if he sinned against him at a time such as this, when all the nobles of the province were before him, his punishment would be greater and heavier still. But cases between a man and his fellow were judged before all "those who knew law (dat) and judgment (din)" alone, simply according to the statute of the law. Now the king saw that if he commanded that this case be judged by the judgment of "those who knew the times," this would treat it as though a commoner had sinned against the king — a case known to carry a sentence of death. Therefore the king said to the wise men, "those who knew the times," that this case's matter was not for them to hear; rather, it could be judged before any of those who knew law and judgment generally. For this was not the case of a commoner who sinned against the king, since she was a queen just as he was king, and he had no advantage over her. And since he was king and she was queen by virtue of her own birth/lineage, this was only a case between a man and his wife, for the two of them were equal in rank, and any of those who knew law and judgment could judge this matter like any other case between a man and his wife. This is what he said to "those who knew the times" — that this matter of the king's could be judged before any ordinary "knowers of law and judgment" at large. However, in that he doubled the terms dat and din here, he intended to acquit her entirely. For although "dat" can also apply to the civil law governing matters between a man and his fellow, it seems to me that, since here it comes paired with "din" — which alone would cover all matters of dispute between a man and his fellow — "dat" here must be a term distinct, referring to moral custom, for "dat" mostly refers to divine or moral laws/customs. Now, in this case, where he commanded that Vashti be brought before him to display her beauty before many peoples, from the perspective of din (strict law) she would be liable. For even if they judged them as husband and wife without regard to the monarchy, the law would then be, as it still is today in the lands of the East, that the wife is subjugated to her husband and must submit to do his will, and if she transgresses, she would surely be punished. But from the perspective of the moral custom (dat), she would be acquitted in her judgment. For the moral custom was that Persian and Median women were modest, secluded within their palaces, not to be seen before men, as stated in the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:6): "Arab women go out veiled, and Median women go out wrapped." And he commanded her to come display her beauty before the multitudes, which is against the moral custom. And so, if they were to judge this case as a case between a man and his wife, the wife would not be obligated to transgress the moral custom. This is why it says "before all who knew law (dat) and judgment (din)" — that in this case they needed to know the dat (custom) as well; and afterward it says "according to the dat, what should be done" — that they should take the moral custom into consideration in their judgment.

"Then the king said to the wise men who knew the times" (verse 13). — According to the plain sense (peshat), everything depends on the time [circumstance], for sometimes, even though the strict law does not dictate it, the time [i.e., the circumstances of the moment] is the determining factor. Therefore he brought the matter before those who would know whether she was liable to death, and this is [the meaning of] "who knew the times" — whether, according to the time, it was indeed necessary to issue a decree. And they answered that the time certainly required that a safeguard (geder) be made, for [it says] "then the wives of the princes of Persia and Media... will say, etc." (verse 18). It further seems that the meaning of "who knew the times" is that they knew what happens in every period like this one — one who is wise and also knows what has already happened in every period is fit to render judgment on this matter. For since they know all the things that occurred in every period, they certainly also know what to do now in this matter — so its meaning appears to be. "for such was the king's manner" (verse 13). — He means to say: do not be surprised that it seems demeaning to the king to bring the case before others, for this appears to be a lowering [of dignity] for the king. On this he says "for such was the king's manner," that is, a matter that pertains to the king he lays before those who know statute (dat) and law (din), so that people should not say the king perverts justice. And as for his saying "statute and law" — the meaning of "statute" is a legislated statute that is made and set according to the convention established in the province (medinah). And "law" is a matter that reason itself dictates. It further seems that "statute" is what a person does [that affects only] himself and not his fellow, whereas "law" is what he does to his fellow. And in the Gemara (Megillah 12b): "Then the king said to the wise men who knew the times." Who are the "wise men"? The Rabbis. "Who knew the times" — that they knew how to intercalate years and fix months. "According to the law, what was to be done" (below, verse 15) — he said to them: Judge her case for me. They said: What should we do? If we say to have her killed, tomorrow, when the wine wears off him, he will remember her and demand her from us. If we say to release her, now he will say, "They do not care about the disgrace done to me and to his kingdom." Rather, it is better that we remove ourselves [from the matter]. They said to him: From the day the Temple was destroyed and we were exiled from our land, counsel has been taken from us, and we do not know how to judge capital cases. Rather, go to Ammon and Moab, who dwell in their own place like wine that rests on its lees and whose flavor has not dissipated, as it is written (Jeremiah 48:11), "Moab has been at ease from his youth, and has settled on his lees, and has not been emptied from vessel to vessel, and has not gone into exile, etc." Immediately: "and the ones near him were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, Memuchan" (below, verse 14). Rabbi Levi said: This entire verse is stated with reference to the sacrifices. ["Carshena"] — the ministering angels said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the universe, have the nations ever offered before You young bulls as Israel has offered? "Shethar" — have the nations of the world ever offered before You [two] turtledoves and young pigeons the way Israel has offered? "Admatha" — have the nations of the world ever built before You an altar of earth, as it is written (Exodus 20:21), "An altar of earth you shall make for Me"? "Tarshish" — have they ever served before You in priestly garments, as it is written (Exodus 39:13), "tarshish, onyx, and jasper"? "Meres" — have they ever stirred blood before You? "Marsena" — have they ever mixed meal-offerings before You? "Memuchan" — have they ever prepared before You the table of the showbread? Immediately: "And Memuchan said" (below, verse 16) — it was taught: "Memuchan" — this is Haman, and why was he called "Memuchan"? Because he was prepared for calamity. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: From here [we learn] that a commoner jumps in first [to speak]. [End of the Talmudic passage]. And as for what this midrash says, that the entire verse is stated with reference to the sacrifices — the reason this was difficult for them [the Sages] was: why are their names mentioned at all? For they are not mentioned anywhere else, such that one could say their names are mentioned in order to inform us that these are the same ones mentioned elsewhere. But since their names are not mentioned elsewhere, what then does it come to teach us? Rather, it comes to hint at the sacrifices. Furthermore, "the one near him" (ha-karov) is written defectively [without the vav], which comes to teach that they were lacking (chaserim) the sacrifices that are hinted at here. And as for what this midrash says, "Who are the 'wise men'? The Rabbis" — the reason this was difficult for them was: how could salvation come to Israel through these men? For certainly the wise men of the nations are opponents of Israel, so how could salvation come to Israel through them? Therefore they said that this salvation came through these men, and on this basis it states that certainly the case was initially brought before the wise men of Israel; it was only that they did not wish to judge the matter, and they said the case should be brought before Ammon and Moab. Nevertheless, since it was they [the wise men of Israel] who gave the counsel to bring the case before these [Ammon and Moab], and it was they [Ammon and Moab] who judged that Vashti should be put to death, the salvation did indeed come through the wise men of Israel. There is a further way to explain why he said that the entire verse is stated with reference to the sacrifices: our Sages, may their memory be blessed, found this difficult, since they said in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 3:10), "Every place where the Megillah says 'the king' [alone], it speaks of the King of kings of kings [Hashem]. And every place where it is written 'King Ahasuerus,' it speaks of Ahasuerus." Now here it is written (verses 13-14), "And the king said... and the one near to him," [using the term "the king" alone] — but do these wicked men have closeness (kirvah) to Hashem, may He be blessed? Therefore Scripture expounds this passage concerning the sacrifices, which certainly are brought near (kerovim) to Him — and this too is correct. And he called the wise men of Israel "those who knew the times," because the wise men of Israel were known on account of the intercalation of the year, for they would calculate the solar cycles (tekufot) and the constellations (mazalot) and everything pertaining to this, and it would be found, by observation and by sight, that it was so. And it is a known matter that this cannot be attained except by means of the holy spirit (ruach ha-kodesh), through which they knew the matter of the celestial spheres and their course. But that a person should attain, from his own intellect, knowledge of the movement of the celestial spheres and their rotation — this is impossible to attain. Therefore, the fact that the wise men of Israel knew the times shows that they were truly wise, hitting the mark precisely and not missing even by the blink of an eye. And therefore, when Ahasuerus became aware of their wisdom, and their reputation for wisdom went out into the world — as it is written (Deuteronomy 4:6), "for it is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of all the peoples" — and this is said regarding the secret of intercalation. Therefore "those who knew the times" is the name [given] to the wise men of Israel specifically, since no person can attain knowledge of the movement of the stars except among that nation [Israel] — [only] the wise men of Israel, who knew it by means of the holy spirit. But they did not want to judge this matter, and the king brought the judgment before Ammon and Moab. And the angels would mention before Hashem, may He be blessed, the merit of Israel, and this matter caused these officials to argue for the guilt of Vashti. And now there is no difficulty as to how salvation could come through wicked men, for the primary cause that saved Israel was through the sacrifices, as will be explained, and this is what caused these men to argue for Vashti's guilt, and therefore the sacrifices are hinted at in their names. For the ministering angels above were arguing in [Israel's] merit for the sake of the sacrifices, and this brought about, down below, that these officials would argue for [Vashti's] guilt. There is a further way to explain "those who knew the times": the meaning is that they knew all things in their truth, as they actually are, for all things are under [the dominion of] time, and the changes of things follow the changes of time. Therefore it says "those who knew the times," meaning that they knew all things through their cause, which is the times. And it is a known matter that time renews all things, as it is written (Ecclesiastes 3:1), "To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose." This, then, is [the meaning of] "those who knew the times" — as if to say that they knew how to grasp the things that time renews, which are the things that come into being in the world. And this appears to be how our Sages, of blessed memory, explained it, for they explained (Megillah 12b) "those who knew the times" as meaning that they knew how to intercalate the year and fix the months. This concerns the matter of time, and since they knew the matter of time, they also knew the things that are under time, in their truth — such is this explanation. And [Scripture] comes to say that he brought the case before the sons of Issachar, as we have said, that this redemption — namely, the killing of Vashti — was fitting to be [carried out] through Israel, for every redeemer was from Israel, and redemption should not be through the nations, who are opponents of Israel — how could redemption come through them? Therefore this judgment [was brought] before the wise men of Israel. And although the ministering angels were the [ultimate] cause, as was explained above, nevertheless the starting point was fitting to be through Israel, for whatever it is possible to be done through Israel, it should be so done. But because of the danger [involved], they withdrew from it, and said that Ammon and Moab should judge this case. And it says, "and the one near to him [Carshena, etc.]" — and they explained (Megillah 12b) that "Carshena" is a term for flock animals, like "karim" [rams/lambs] throughout Scripture, and lambs are yearlings (Mishnah Parah 1:3), and this is [the meaning of] "Carshena." This is because the redemption of Israel was dependent upon the death of Vashti the queen, so that Esther would come in her place, and Israel needed, for their redemption, the death of Vashti, so that Esther would come in her stead. And this is a great thing — to put to death a queen, the daughter of kings — and therefore, corresponding to this, the angels would speak in Israel's favor, [arguing] that they belong to Him, may He be blessed. And this matter is hinted at even in the offering of a meal-offering (minchah) alone, as it is written (Leviticus 2:1), "And when a soul brings a meal-offering as an offering, etc." — anyone who offers a meal-offering is regarded as if he offered his own soul (Menachot 104b). How much more so when Israel offers all the [other] sacrifices, which is regarded as if they offered their own souls. And we have explained in several places that the offering of a sacrifice is regarded as if one offers his own soul also to Hashem, may He be blessed. Therefore the sacrifices indicate that Israel belongs to Hashem, may He be blessed — so how could Ahasuerus hand Israel over into the hand of Haman to do with them as he wished, as though they were his, when, insofar as Israel belongs entirely to Hashem, may He be blessed, how is it possible that another should have dominion over them? And this is clearly its meaning. Furthermore, the sacrifices that Israel offers — this is what sustains the entire world, for it was said (Avot 1:2), "The world stands on three things: on the Torah, on the [Temple] service, and on acts of loving-kindness," and we have explained this at length in our composition Derech Chaim. And how could he destroy and eliminate that which sustains the world? Therefore it is impossible except for Israel, who serve Hashem, may He be blessed, through the sacrifices, and on this the world stands, and this is the merit of Israel that is hinted at here. And because what the angels were saying before Hashem, may He be blessed, is not something revealed to man but hidden, therefore this too is hidden and not revealed. And it says (Megillah 12b), "'Memuchan' — this is Haman. And why was he called 'Memuchan'? Because he was prepared for calamity." Now this is difficult: from where did they know that this is Haman, that they said "this is Haman"? It seems that the view of our Sages, of blessed memory, rests on the fact that these are seven attendants — for why did he choose specifically seven attendants? Rather, it is because Ahasuerus wanted the kingdom of earth to be like the kingdom of heaven, and therefore he had seven attendants corresponding to the seven [heavenly] attendants, which are [the acronym] Shin-Tzadi-Mem Chet-Nun-Kaf-Lamed [Shabbetai/Saturn, Tzedek/Jupiter, Ma'adim/Mars, Chammah/Sun, Nogah/Venus, Kokhav/Mercury, Levanah/Moon]. And these seven attendants, their order of service is [the acronym] Kaf-Tzadi-Nun-Shin Chet-Lamed-Mem: Kokhav (Mercury) serves the first night of the week, Tzedek (Jupiter) the second night, Nogah (Venus) the third night, Shabbetai (Saturn) the fourth night, Chammah (Sun) the fifth night, Levanah (Moon) the sixth night, Ma'adim (Mars) the seventh night. Therefore this seventh one, who is Memuchan, corresponds to the power of Ma'adim (Mars). And Haman also corresponds to the power of Mars, for his numerical value (gematria) equals that of "Ma'adim," and therefore his power was to destroy and kill everyone, for this is the power of Mars, which is for evil. Therefore they said in the Gemara (Megillah 12b), "'Memuchan,' who is the seventh of the attendants, 'is Haman,'" for the two of them are equal in their power. And this is also what our Sages, of blessed memory, said (Megillah 12b) [regarding] "and it came to pass on the seventh day" (above, verse 10) — that it was Shabbat, for Mars rules on Shabbat, which is the last day, and this is the power of Haman. And this is also proven from our Targum, which states (below, verse 16), "'And Memuchan said' — this is Haman." And it later translates (below 2:1), "when the king's wrath had subsided" — that the king asked after Vashti, and they told him that she had been hanged on the advice of these seven eunuchs, and the king grew angry, and these seven officials were hanged. If so, how is Haman mentioned afterward, seeing that he was [only] one of the seven princes of Media and Persia? Rather, the explanation is as we have said: that when it says "Memuchan — this is Haman," it means that they are equal in one [particular] power, but he is not literally Haman. There is also a way to explain the words of the Targum along more indirect lines: that what it says, immediately (below 2:1), "his anger grew fierce, and he decreed that these nobles be hanged," means that he so decreed, that they be hanged. But because Ahasuerus feared that the eunuchs would rebel against him — since these seven had done nothing except that their opinion was that Vashti should be killed — he therefore annulled the decree. And this is why it says only "and he decreed that they be hanged," but they were not [actually] hanged. But the main explanation is as we have said, that Haman too had the power of Mars, like Memuchan, who is the seventh of the attendants written here, for the seventh has the power of Mars. It seems that this is why the vav comes after the first mem [in the spelling "מומכן" in verse 16], to expound that he was prepared for calamity — this is why the vav comes after the first mem [there, rather than in verse 14's spelling "ממוכן"]. You should know that there are two [degrees of] readiness for evil: there is a person before whom, when a matter that is truly evil is brought — such as the deed of Vashti, which was certainly evil — he immediately judges it as evil, and does not turn the matter over and search for whether perhaps a merit might be found, as a righteous court is commanded to do, to open with [a claim of] merit; this one does not do so, and therefore he is called "prepared for evil." And there is one who is even more prepared for evil, who searches for the liability, and always wishes to find guilt — this one is "prepared for evil" completely. Therefore, at first, when Scripture tells of those who saw the king's face, it is written (verse 14) "ממוכן" [without the vav after the first mem], [indicating] that he was prepared for evil, being one who searches for liability and not merit — this is one who is prepared for evil completely. But [later it is written] "and מומכן said" [with the vav after the first mem], where the case of Vashti, who had done the evil deed, was already before him, and this is not a complete preparedness for evil, but rather that he jumped in first to say immediately that she was liable to death — and this is only a partial preparedness for evil. Therefore the vav appears next to the first mem, [indicating that] he is [only] partially "prepared." And this indicates a partial preparedness — when he jumps in first and argues for guilt, but does not first argue for merit, as would be fitting for a righteous court. Thus we find that in the name "Memuchan," it is hinted that the mem and the vav [together] constitute a partial form of "prepared" (mukhan), and this indicates that he is [partially] prepared for evil. And there remains still the [rest of the letters spelling] "prepared" (mukhan) [in full], which indicates that he is completely evil — this being when he searches all the more for the guilt of the one being judged.

Most intimately associated with him. To present his affairs before them were the following: Carshena, Shesar, etc.

"Who saw the king's face" — there are places where the king would not show himself to all his men. And in the Book of the Kings of Persia it is written that there are four ranks among the officials; the first rank sits foremost before the king. And this is the meaning of 'who sat first in the kingdom' — [i.e.,] in the first rank of the kingdom.

The Questions: What is meant by "and the one close to him"? And why does it repeat their description under three headings? "and the one close to him" — Having established beforehand that this case was not a case for a king but rather a case between a man and his wife, he chose to bring this case before these seven officers for four reasons: (1) "and the one close to him" — that they sat close to him, and he did not want this case to be publicized; rather, since they had already heard everything in any case, they were the ones he wanted to judge the matter, so that it would remain a secret among them. (2) He chose them because they were the seven officers of Persia and Media, and it was fitting that they judge this case because of their rank. (3) They constantly saw the king's face and recognized his winks and hints, and knew what was in his heart — that he wanted to acquit her. (4) "who sat first in the kingdom" — that they had sat in the kingdom for a long time, and had already tested the events of the days and examined the times, in the manner of elderly judges, expert and skilled in the matter.

Concerning the proper procedure to follow. This refers back to “The king consulted the sages.” — Notes: (28) Above, v. 13.

The matter is that he [Memuchan] reasoned: How could the king's mouth be restrained from pleading further on her behalf, except by telling him, in the presence of all the princes - who are the princes of the provinces, the kings of the satrapies - 'It is not against the king alone,' etc., 'for it is against all the princes,' etc.? For it would not sit well with him to say, 'I am not concerned for their honor,' since that would be like sending the branch to their nose, touching the honor of his own kingship. And the intent of his statement was to say: 'Behold, one can see from between your eyelids that you are prepared to forgo your own honor - but this is not sufficient, for it is not against the king alone that she has done wrong,' etc., 'for it is against all the princes,' etc. And even if you forgo your own honor, you cannot forgo the honor of all the princes; and even if the princes should now set aside their own will for the sake of yours, and they too forgive her, this too would not be sufficient. For behold, she has also wronged the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom, all of whom are not here with us today; and even if those who are here with us today should also proceed through a chain of pardons and extend forgiveness on behalf of all the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom who are not present - that pardon is invalid, for it touches their honor too. For behold, 'the matter of the queen shall go forth' concerning all the women in all the provinces of the kingdom, to make [their husbands] despised, etc. And also, the six arguments that you have arrayed - I hereby nullify them. As for what you said, that she is called 'Queen Vashti' [title first] - because the royal title is placed before her name, to indicate that she is inherently a queen, a daughter of kings - the opposite is true: for she is called only 'Vashti the queen' [name first], because the kingship is yours; her beginning was not as royalty, but rather she was 'Vashti' devoid of royalty, like all the women of the world, and through you the status of queen was added to her - but her beginning was lowly. As to the second [argument], that she sinned only through passive inaction - for you said that 'she did not do' should not be reckoned to her except as an active deed - this is answered by the phrase 'Vashti has done wrong' [avtah Vashti], for it is reckoned as active wrongdoing, not merely the absence of doing good, treated as when punishment is exacted - for from her it will follow that husbands will actually be made despised. As to the third [argument], that the king's statement was made without deliberation - he said: 'for the matter of the queen shall go forth,' etc., meaning that when the matter goes forth and spreads, it will not be reported that the king's statement was devoid of forethought, only 'the matter of the queen' - meaning that people will say, 'the king,' etc. As to the fourth [argument] - he said [this is answered] by their saying, 'the king Ahasuerus said to bring Vashti the queen' - placing her name before her title, to show that she is subordinate to him, since her queenship came from him; and so how could they imagine him to be the stable-hand of her father? And also the fifth [argument] - that it was done through chamberlains - he said: behold, they will not say that the king ordered his chamberlains to bring her; he simply said 'to bring her,' without specifying by whom. As to the sixth [argument] - he said, '[and] she did not come,' meaning that they will not say she was brought against her will, but rather '[and] she did not come' - implying that even by way of her own choice, as one who comes of her own accord to do his bidding, as in her youth she would come - 'yet she did not come.' And according to his approach, his intent was that it should not be said of the king that wives in general would disgrace their husbands, for the matter of the queen was that she was to be brought before all the princes and the peoples - unlike a private matter between a man and his wife. Therefore the verse says: 'for the matter of the queen shall go forth' - it shall not go forth to say that the king ordered Vashti brought before him and before the princes and the people; only 'before him, and she did not come.' Alternatively, one might explain the phrase 'concerning that she did not do,' etc. - paying attention to the language of 'doing' and also to the extra word 'et' - that it would properly have said only 'concerning that she did not come' at the king's word. But behold, we know from our Rabbis of blessed memory that he commanded she be stripped naked and displayed as on the day of her birth, before the eyes of the princes and the peoples. It is possible that the king did this mainly in order to acquit her in judgment when he said 'according to the law,' etc. - for the charge is 'concerning that she did not do,' etc., namely, that she strip herself and come naked; and this is why it says 'she did not do,' rather than 'she did not come.' And this too is why it adds the extra word 'et' - to indicate that she is not liable to punishment for this, for on the contrary, it was foolish and shameful of him [to demand this], along with the other arguments alluded to in the text as discussed above. And it was concerning this that Memuchan opened his eyes and spoke of her failure to come [rather than of her refusal to appear naked]: 'not against the king alone,' etc., as discussed. And as to what you hinted, that your decree was that she be disgraced, and that this should not be done - behold, 'for the matter of the queen shall go forth,' etc.: it shall not go forth to say, 'the king Ahasuerus said to bring Vashti naked, and she did not come,' but rather they will say, 'he said to bring Vashti the queen' - for on the contrary, it will appear as though it was done in a manner that showed her honor as queen, and [still] she did not come. Now, to arrive at the resolution of the verses: we have noted [a difficulty in] the wording 'be'omram' [in their saying, masculine] - that it should properly say 'be'omran' with a nun [feminine]. And furthermore, [the verse] says 'and this day shall [the princesses] say,' etc. - what is the statement they shall say? For it is not stated in the text. Now, I have heard it explained that the disgrace that follows for the princes is not comparable to the disgrace that follows for the common people, for the wives of the common people, being lowly, are not ashamed to speak of their husbands' disgrace openly; for they will answer and say, 'The king Ahasuerus said to bring Vashti,' etc., 'and she did not come' - meaning, 'And how should I regard you? I, the good one - are you any better than King Ahasuerus?' But the princesses will not take their husbands' honor so lightly as to spell it out to them in plain language, disgracing them; rather they will hint to them, saying, 'Remember that day of the king's feast' - and he will understand precisely, from the implication, that she means 'that which Vashti did not do' at the king's word; and therefore he too will bend his shoulder to bear it, saying that he [the king] is no better than Pharaoh. This is [the meaning of] 'and this day shall the princesses say,' etc. - for what the princesses will say is merely a reminder of that day; but all the [other] women will say, 'the king Ahasuerus said to bring Vashti the queen,' etc., just as it is said, 'in their saying, the king Ahasuerus,' etc. Now this is elegant in its own right, but it is not correct according to the text. First, because their saying 'the king Ahasuerus said to bring,' etc., is not the statement of the common women, for if it were, it should have said 'be'omran' with a nun. Furthermore, when the matter of the queen goes forth to all the princesses, they will not say 'this day,' for it will already have passed; rather they would say 'that day.' And even if they were to mention 'this day,' it should be phrased differently, saying 'that day' - it would have been proper to say 'they will mention,' but it says 'they shall say' (tomarnah), suggesting that these are the very words they shall say. Furthermore, according to this, it would mean that those who heard the matter of the queen said something excessive and devoid of sense; rather it would have been proper to say, 'and this day shall the princesses of Persia and Media say to all the king's princes.' And let us also note the phrase 'and there will be much contempt and wrath' - for how can it join two things that are not of the same category? For the contempt follows from Vashti, while the wrath is the king's own wrath, which the king will feel in order to take revenge - so how can it say that these two disparate things amount to [one]? Now it seems correct to me, based on the language of the text, to explain it in the reverse direction from what we have mentioned - that the shame of the common women is greater and more openly displayed than the shame of the house of the princes and princesses would merely hint at. Rather, on the contrary, Memuchan came to intensify [the point about] the shame that would follow for the princes, which is greater and doubled compared to that of the common women. This is as our Rabbis of blessed memory wrote regarding 'Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women, in the royal house' - that she invited all the princesses of Persia and Media, all the princes' wives, for she reasoned: 'If the princes rebel, their wives will be held as pledges with me in the house' - but she did not invite the common women to the royal house. It follows that the princes were in Shushan with the king at the feast, while their wives were in the royal house with Vashti. Now let us come to the matter. Memuchan said: Behold, in two respects the disgrace of the princes exceeds the disgrace of the peoples. First, in timing. Second, in the quality of the disgrace. As to the first: the wives of all the peoples in all the provinces of the king did not know of what had happened except after the passage of days, when the matter would be heard; and every man who hears it will tell it in his house and say to his wife, 'Have you not heard that the king Ahasuerus said to bring Vashti the queen before him, and she did not come?' And then, upon hearing it, his wife will disgrace him in her own eyes. This is [the meaning of] 'for the matter of the queen shall go forth,' etc. - meaning that what will cause husbands to be disgraced is their wives saying to them, 'the king Ahasuerus said,' etc. And this will not happen today, but the matter of the queen will go forth only over the course of time, throughout all the provinces. But as for the princesses, 'this day they shall say,' etc., for they are all here, and the princesses are in Shushan the capital, and this very day their disgracing of their husbands in their own eyes will follow. Second - and this is even worse, a very great evil - that seeing is not comparable to hearing. This is because the wives of the common people, in all the provinces of the king, did not hear with their own ears the queen say anything that would diminish the king's standing regarding obedience to his word; rather they will only know by report, when their husbands tell them, 'the king Ahasuerus said to bring,' etc. - and this alone will disgrace them in their wives' eyes; but they did not hear the queen speak the words with her own mouth, for had they heard her, they would have grown more brazen still, since seeing makes a greater impression than hearing. But the princesses will be the opposite: they will not wait until their husbands, the princes, tell them, 'the king Ahasuerus said to bring,' etc.; rather they will say to them, 'What is it to you, that you tell us the queen was so brazen as not to come at the king's word? You did not know of her wrongdoing and refusal except from the mouths of the chamberlains - but we heard with our own ears, from her own mouth, the words she spoke, and her refusal to come at the king's word, for we were there, present with her at the feast.' This is [the meaning of] 'and this day the princesses of Persia and Media shall say' - and not after a passage of time, like the rest of the common people. And what will they say? That they themselves heard the very words of the queen - this is what they will say to the king's princes, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, that she grew so brazen as to speak scornful words, saying: 'What does this foolish king want, the stable-hand of my father's household? I am a queen, daughter of great kings; my father could drink a thousand jugs of wine and not act foolishly, while this one has been made a fool by a little wine.' It follows that, apart from her refusal, the text hints at words of scorn and reviling with which she reviled him. And there is no doubt that the messengers will abbreviate her scornful words when reporting back to the king; and even if they do tell of it, those who hear may imagine that the messengers added falsehood to her words - but had they heard it from her directly, they certainly would have been affected all the more. Now let us note the extra word 'et' in the phrase 'et devar ha-malkah' [the matter of the queen] - that this extra 'et' includes her words of scorn in addition to her refusal, and this is the third degree of disgrace that follows for the princes, beyond what follows for the rest of the people. With this, the language of the text is very well accounted for, showing that the disgrace that follows for the princes is worse and more bitter than that which follows for the peoples. For among all the common women there are three mitigating points, while for the princesses there is [an aggravating] one: first, that the common women knew nothing except from their husbands, as stated; second, that they did not hear the refusal from her own mouth; third, that all that would be said to them is that 'she did not come,' nothing more. But as for the princesses, not only this, but they will also say to their husbands: 'You did not hear it from the chamberlains except that she refused to come; and even if they reported the ugliness of her words, you did not hear it from her own mouth - but we heard with our own ears the matter of the queen' - meaning words hinting that she is the true queen, and not him, for he is the stable-hand of her father's household - this is what they will say to all the king's princes. This is not the case with the common women, for it will not follow that they grow angry at their husbands as Vashti grew angry at the king and reviled him - only that they will disgrace their husbands in their own eyes alone. But the princesses, who will say that they themselves heard the very matter of the queen - that beyond her refusal she grew angry at him - it is fitting that both disgrace and wrath should follow, that they too grow angry at their husbands as Vashti did to the king. This is [the meaning of] 'and there will be much contempt and wrath' - it follows that the evil effect upon the princes is greater [than upon the common people], since it will bring about wrath, that their wives will grow angry at them as Vashti did before their very eyes, and not merely disgrace in their eyes, as with the wives of the peoples - given the threefold aggravation of their situation. Or one might explain 'and there will be much contempt and wrath' thus: he [Memuchan] foresaw that the king could respond to him, 'Is it because wives might disgrace their husbands that such a great queen, daughter of great kings, should die?' Therefore he said 've-khedei' [and there is reason enough] - it is the combination of the wives' disgracing of their husbands, together with the wrath that the king felt, as it says, 'and the king grew very wrathful' - and it is the arrival of these two together that brings her to the gates of death. Now, in the Midrash on the end of this passage, it states as follows: 'And there will be much contempt and wrath' - Rav and Shmuel [disagreed]. One said: 'This contempt is worth this wrath.' The other said: 'This wrath is worth this contempt.' [Thus far the Midrash.] Their words appear to be in agreement, expressing one idea in different terms. But the difficulty we raised troubled them - that contempt and wrath are not of the same category, for contempt is the wives' disgracing of their husbands in their own eyes, while wrath is the king's own wrath, to be angry and take revenge - so how can it say 've-khedei vizzayon va-katzef' [and there is enough contempt and wrath]? And furthermore, since it is speaking about the contempt, how can it say the contempt is itself worthy of contempt? Therefore they came to answer. One said, 'This contempt is worth this wrath' - meaning: lest the king say, 'Is it because wives might disgrace their husbands that so great a queen, daughter of great kings, should die?' - to this he responds: do not take this disgrace lightly, for behold, this contempt is worth this wrath, that you should be wrathful against her for it; and 'kedei' means that the one should be equal to the other. The other said, 'This wrath is worth...' etc. - meaning, it is not as you say, needing to argue that the disgrace should not be taken lightly; rather the opposite is true. For there was room for the king to say: even though she deserves death, killing her in wrath will not remedy this ailment, for it is not beyond the wives to disgrace their husbands nonetheless, saying to them, even though she died, did she not still act out against her husband in her defiance? And also, the king put her to death because it was within his power, being a great king - but a husband of another woman, who does not have power in his hand as the king does, will [merely] bend his shoulder to bear it, [saying that] he is no better than King Ahasuerus - such that Vashti opened a door for all women to disgrace their husbands, even though she herself would die for the matter. And because of this argument, there is one who interprets 'and let it not pass' as meaning: that they should bring Vashti before the king against her will, and her folly should not go unpunished, so that all women be chastened and not act as she did - for they would say, 'she already got away with her refusal,' and only afterward did they kill her. And although this is not the correct interpretation of the verse according to the truth, as will be explained, please God, further on - let us at least accept that, without her being brought before him, there is room to say that women would not be chastened even were she to receive her punishment. And this is the view of the one who says 'this wrath is worth [this contempt]' - lest the king say, 'Would her death not remedy the matter?' - for women would say, 'She acted out of folly, so what does her death accomplish?' Therefore he had to tell the king that this is not so; rather, 'this wrath is worth [this contempt]' - that he should be wrathful against her, putting her to death to remove the disgrace, for it is not beyond them to say that were it not proper to give women's honor to their husbands, they [the judges] would not have sentenced her to death. This is [the meaning of] 've-khedei vizzayon va-katzef' - meaning, they are equal to one another; together they are perfectly balanced, one corresponding to the other, and one should not say that either is too small to contain the evil of the other - meaning, that the wrath is not merely enough to remove the contempt - rather they are equally weighted and match one another. We learn in the Gemara [regarding the verse] 'and the one close to him, Carshena,' etc. - Rabbi Levi said: this entire verse is said with reference to sacrifices. [The name] 'Carshena' [alludes to]: the ministering angels said before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Master of the Universe, have they [the nations] offered before You year-old lambs, in the way Israel offered before You?' 'Shethar' - 'have they offered before You two turtledoves?' 'Admatha' - 'have they built before You an altar of earth?' 'Tarshish' - 'have they served before You in priestly garments, of which it is written, tarshish, shoham, and yashfeh?' 'Meres' - 'have they mixed the blood before You?' 'Marsena' - 'have they mixed the meal-offerings before You?' 'Memuchan' - 'have they prepared a table before You?' [Thus far the Gemara.] Now is this not difficult - what does this have to do with the judgment of Vashti, who did not do the king's bidding? And further, of all the sacrifices they mentioned only lambs and turtledoves - where did they leave out bulls and goats? And further, why, after the sacrifices, did they mention the altar of earth, rather than placing it before the sacrifices, since it precedes them in actual existence - and it would have been proper to place the priestly garments before the sacrifices as well? And further, it mentioned the mixing of the blood and not the other services, and likewise the mixing of the meal-offering - and it would have been far better to say, 'have they offered meal-offerings,' rather than making the main point the mixing? And further, it speaks of the matter of the table - why mention the table and not the menorah? And it would also have been proper to mention only matters of atonement, like the act of sacrifice and the like. However, Midrash Chazit (Song of Songs Rabbah) agrees and goes on to say that, because of the sin of Ahasuerus's feast, the Israel of that generation were liable, God forbid, to destruction - for it says that the wicked Haman devised schemes to separate Israel from their Father in Heaven, leading them - invited, and going along innocently - to the king's feast, so that they would become defiled by the king's food-portion and the wine of his feasts, and would set harlots before them to corrupt them, saying, 'The God of these people hates lewdness,' etc., 'and his soul desired her, and he did it' - and were it not for Hashem, we would have been swallowed alive. And it diminished in the eyes of the Blessed One, [Who said]: 'Sufficient is the trouble in its own time' - not to bring forth salvation until the time of its coming, to destroy, etc., or until the wrath of the evil deed had passed - only, while Israel was still caught in their sin, at Ahasuerus's feast He devised a plan to raise up for them a close redeemer - she is Esther, daughter of his uncle - by arousing the king's spirit to find it fitting to ask that Vashti be brought, etc., and also arousing the spirit of Memuchan, to make her odious in the eyes of the king, so as to remove her, so that in her place should stand the daughter of Avichayil, who risked her life to save Israel from the hand of their plunderers. And this, I think, is the intent of the Masorah, that [the word] 'to show' appears three times in Scripture: first, 'You have begun to show Your servant'; second, 'to show the peoples and the princes her beauty'; third, 'to show Esther, and to command,' etc. And the matter would be [explained] thus: Hashem, God, is merciful in judgment - 'You have begun to show Your servant' Israel Your greatness, in that, through the king's good-heartedness from wine, the very wine through which Israel had sinned, he said to bring Vashti to show her beauty. And why was this? Was it not so that from this should follow the matter of showing Esther and commanding her to come before the king on behalf of her people - which would not have happened had Vashti not died through the king's word being roused to kill her, for Esther would then never have attained royalty and petitioned the king for her people. Now, had the others disagreed with Memuchan's colleagues, saying, 'You have not spoken correctly, for Vashti should not die on account of this, lest women disgrace their husbands in their own eyes' - his view would have been overruled by his six colleagues, for the law follows the majority - and how then would Esther come and reign in Vashti's place? And this is nothing other than 'a sword for Hashem, avenging the blood of the children of Israel,' which Haman was destined to spill upon the ground like water. Therefore, from that point, Hashem of Hosts counseled that Vashti should die, and in her place should arise the one of whom it is said, 'if one comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first' - and He brought us out from the midst of the overthrow. And with this let us come to the substance of the [Talmudic] statement - for it was difficult for Rabbi Levi: who placed the verse 'and the one close to him' among the connected verses? For after the verse 'and the king said to the wise men,' etc., it would have been proper to bring the verse 'according to the law, what is to be done,' etc., as we raised in difficulty above. Therefore our Rabbis of blessed memory informed us that this is nothing other than that, when the king brought Vashti's judgment before the sages, there arose Above an arousal of the attribute of justice against Israel for their sin, so that the king's sages should not sentence her to death, so that Esther should not come to save them - were it not that the ministering angels pleaded on Israel's behalf. This is [the meaning of] 'and the one close to him,' etc. - meaning that the thing close to Him, blessed be He, at that moment, which inclined their hearts toward Memuchan's proposal, was what the angels pleaded on Israel's behalf, saying 'Carshena,' etc. Now, we have written the Midrash's agreement, and also the view in the Gemara, as we shall write further on, please God - that because of the sin of the feast, Israel was liable, God forbid, at that time, with their very lives. Now it is not beyond the men of Israel who were at the king's table that seven categories should be found among them. One - those who sinned in the reflection and thought over the harlots set before them, or over forbidden foods. Two - those who sinned in speech. Three - those who sinned in deed, eating carrion and torn animals. Four - the many who drank of libation wine, which is the sin of idolatry, as it is said, 'who ate the fat of their sacrifices and drank the wine of their libations.' Five - and this too is a deed: those who feared God among them, so as not to draw the king's attention, if others were drinking, occupied themselves with mixing cups and bowls of wine and passing them to the gentiles reclining with them, or to others passing by. Six - one whose heart God had touched, and even this one would not act so with the libation wine, but only with the bread, breaking it into pieces and cutting meat before the guests. Seven - those better than these, who did neither this nor that, but simply sat reclining at the king's table with the king's food-portion and royal fare set before them, for the sake of the king's honor. Corresponding to these seven, the ministering angels spoke. Concerning the first, the sin of the heart's reflection, they said: 'Have they offered before You year-old lambs' - these are unblemished year-old lambs for burnt-offerings, as at all of Hashem's festivals during their festive feasts - seven lambs for a burnt-offering, in addition to the individual burnt-offering lambs that atone for the reflection of the heart, as known from our Rabbis of blessed memory. Now, if Israel sinned in this category, they nonetheless performed its remedy - unlike the idolaters, for all the evil of their thoughts - so how could He be repelled by Israel so as not to bring about Vashti's death in order to bring Esther, to give them life through evil circumstance? Concerning the second, they said: 'Have they offered, as Israel did, two turtledoves,' which come for the utterance of the lips, as it says, 'or if a person swears, uttering with the lips to do evil,' etc., 'and shall bring two turtledoves,' etc. And since it is stated there that it is for the utterance of the lips in an oath, this shows that its matter is the sin of speech. Concerning the third category, the deed of eating, the enjoyment of the physical - [the angels said]: 'Have they made an altar of earth,' as Israel made an altar of earth in the Holy Temple, to sanctify the earth from which their [bodily] substance is taken, as is known, that man was created from the earth of the place of his atonement. Concerning the fourth, the drinking of libation wine, a matter of idolatry - [the angels said]: 'Have they made priestly garments,' among which is the ephod, to atone for their idolatry, as Israel [did]. Concerning the fifth, the mixing of the wine and passing it along, a preparation for the drinkers - [the angels said]: 'Have they mixed the blood before You,' which is a preparation for the sprinkling. Concerning the sixth, the breaking of the bread into pieces and the like - they said: 'Have they mixed my meal-offerings.' Concerning the seventh, that a table was set before them - correspondingly, the showbread is recalled against them, which they set continually upon the table before You. And these matters found among them protected [Israel]. The general point is: because these matters were present before Him, blessed be He, when He arranged Vashti's judgment before her judges, so that they should not be justified in judging her, this verse - 'and the one close to him,' etc. - is therefore stated there, for it is what they pleaded before Him, blessed be He. Therefore also, that it says 'according to the law, what is to be done,' etc. - that he [Memuchan] arranged his arguments leaning toward acquitting her, as explained above - this still does not sit right with me. There remains room to object and say that it would have been better to write this verse after the verse 'according to the law,' etc., and only then the verse 'and the one close to him,' etc. - to say that, because of what the ministering angels pleaded on Israel's behalf, it therefore went forth from Hashem that all the wise men, knowers of the times, stood silent, answered no more, and Memuchan's counsel seemed right to them, and the matter was good in the eyes of the king and the princes. However, in response to this, I think their intent in Midrash Chazit was as follows - their statement, 'according to the law, what is to be done' - to restore her according to law, yet for an entire nation, not according to law! Rather, 'according to the law, what is to be done with Queen Vashti' - how much more so with a queen who is not Vashti [i.e., Israel]! [Thus far the Midrash.] Now, it is worth noting that their difficulty is explicit - they were troubled by how, concerning a single woman, he was careful in conscience not to put her to death except according to the law, yet regarding an entire nation he gave no such thought, but rather, contrary to law, wished to destroy them even more than Haman did, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said. It is also possible that they were troubled by the redundancy in his saying 'the queen Vashti' - for who did not know he was referring to her? Or at least he should not have mentioned her name, only 'the queen' alone, since it was known to be Vashti. But their answer is not correct. For is it conceivable that Ahasuerus would say, 'according to the law, what is to be done with Queen Vashti, how much more so with a queen who is not Vashti'? Is it not, on the contrary, that he was among those who brought harm upon Israel, who is 'the daughter of Jerusalem,' 'the queen who is not Vashti' - just as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, [drawing] a parable of the master of the mound and the master of the pit [i.e., two naturally suited to one another] - for this reason he gave the ring to the buyer [Haman]? And furthermore, he did not yet know - it was not even yet in Haman's thought - to decree the destruction of the Jews; so how, then, could the king already have said something to be done to her [Israel] 'according to the law'? And furthermore, in fact he did not act accordingly - had Hashem, in His mercy, not made His kindness wondrous for us. But this is nothing other than [that] his [the Midrash's] view aligns with the view of the preceding statement: that in saying 'and the one close to him,' etc., it refers to what the ministering angels pleaded on Israel's behalf, saying that, according to the law, they are more meritorious than the nations. Therefore the text follows afterward with 'according to the law, what is to be done,' etc., to hint at His response, blessed be He, given to His angels - namely: do not fear, and do not think He will act toward Israel contrary to the law, for behold, 'according to the law, what is to be done with Queen Vashti, how much more so with a queen who is not Vashti' - that is, the Congregation of Israel. And the meaning of their statement, 'according to the law, what is to be done,' etc., is not, in its essence, Ahasuerus's own statement - that it was for restoring her according to law, yet for an entire nation, not according to law, since he was no lover of justice - rather, the essential intent of the verse is by way of hint, to say, 'according to the law, what is to be done with Queen Vashti, how much more so with a queen who is not Vashti.' These are His words, blessed be He - a hint at His response to what His angels pleaded in the preceding verse - even though the plain sense of the verse does not move from its place. And it is regarding this hint that the verse 'according to the law,' etc., is stated after the verse 'and the one close to him,' etc. Even though the plain sense of the text does not move from its place, the order of the matters was written by the Holy Spirit in such a way that we should discern the hint being hinted at, as discussed.

The Questions: Why does it say "by the hand of the chamberlains"? "according to the law (dat)" — We have already written that his intent was that they should judge according to the moral custom (dat), by which she would emerge innocent in her judgment. And so that they would not judge her as a commoner who rebelled against the king — in which case this argument would be of no avail — he said: (1) "the queen Vashti" — that she was a queen in her own right and by her lineage, and her case with the king was only like the case of a wife toward her husband. (2) "who has not done the bidding of King Ahasuerus" — she has an excuse, since it was done by the hand of the chamberlains, and it is sufficient cause for shame and wrath that a queen by birth should be brought by mere chamberlains.

Has aggrieved. An expression of iniquity [עָו‍ֹן]. — Notes: (29) From the root עוה. However, according to the Ibn Ezra the root is עות meaning to act perversely.

"Has done wrong (avatah)" — he serves himself and his own people [i.e., Memuchan advances his own interest along with that of his fellow officials], and so it is, for she has done wrong to all the officials. And what is the wrong? That this matter will go out and be heard.

The Questions: What did Memucan intend by his doubling — "against all the princes" and "against all the peoples"? For if the sin is only that the wives would despise their husbands, what difference does it make whether it is the wives of the princes or the wives of the peoples who despise their husbands? "And Memucan said" — when Memucan saw that the king wished to acquit her, as if to say that this is not a judgment pertaining to the king [alone], since it is a general matter — for the king's honor is the honor of the whole kingdom — but rather only a private matter between a man and his wife; and also wished to conceal the matter, as indicated by the wording "and those close to him" [i.e., consulting only his intimate circle] — he [Memucan] answered before the king and the princes publicly, saying: it is not against the king alone, for it is not a private matter but a general matter pertaining to the whole kingdom. And also, confirming that the king wished to acquit her, as indicated by the wording "she is the queen, Vashti," [implying] that her royal status was inherent in her own person — he answered that she, Queen Vashti, her royal status is not inherent to her; rather, it is only through the king that she is queen, and thus it is a matter between a commoner and a king, and it is also not a matter pertaining to the king alone. Rather, it pertains to: (a) all the princes — for by this she wished to degrade the entire honor of the kingship of Ahasuerus, since by right his kingship ought to be an unlimited kingship, seeing that he attained the kingship through conquest, whereas she wished to limit his kingship by claiming that he attained the kingship through her — and this is a matter pertaining to the kingship as a whole; and this is the second [wrong]: she sinned against all the peoples, in that their wives would despise their husbands — and not merely in one part of your kingdom, but in all the king's provinces — for the matter encompasses both the kingship as a whole and the provinces as a whole.

"And Memucan said" (verse 16) — Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: this teaches that a commoner leaps to the fore. A difficulty was raised against this baraita: but Memucan is counted seventh (verse 14) — why did he speak first, before all the officials? And so they said this is because a commoner leaps to the fore. And this is because a commoner has no lofty stature; rather he is lowly and small, and therefore he hurries to bring into actuality the speech that is within him. Not so a great man, who possesses great perfection, and therefore does not hurry to emerge into actuality. For speech in a person is an emergence into actuality, and with the commoner it hurries to emerge into actuality. But with the great man, his speech is intellectual, and the intellectual does not hurry to emerge into actuality. Therefore it says "a commoner leaps to the fore" — meaning, one who is not intellectual leaps to speak first, for the reason we have stated; such is the explanation of this. But the explanation is not that the commoner wants to display his wisdom and his stature. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 4:6): "And Memucan said" (verse 16) — Rabbi Yochanan said: there are three Amoraim [who differ]. One said: because she used to slap him across the face, this way and that, with her sandal-strap. Another said: because she did not invite his wife to the women's feast. Another said: because he had a daughter, and he sought to marry her into royalty. The one who said it was because she used to slap him across the face with her sandal-strap, this way and that — [proves this from the fact] that he said, "Not against the king alone has Vashti done wrong," implying that she also wronged another, and this refers to her slapping him across the face. And the one who said it was because she did not invite his wife to the women's feast — [proves this] because it says (verse 17), "for the matter of the queen shall go forth to all the women, to make their husbands contemptible in their eyes" — this teaches that she was not there. The meaning: since it says "for the matter of the queen shall go forth," implying that the matter of the queen would come to be heard by her — if so, she was not present at the feast, for had she been at the feast she would already have heard it. Rather, she was one who was not there and would [only later] hear it — and this is [the meaning of] "for the matter of the queen shall go forth" — and the one who was not at the feast was his own wife. And the one who said it was because he had a daughter and sought to marry her into royalty — [proves this from] what is said (verse 19), "and let the king give her royal estate to her companion who is better than she." And the explanation of this: these Amoraim likewise had the difficulty of why he spoke first. And so they said that a matter which touches a person himself causes him to speak first, and this matter touched Memucan [personally]. And the things that belong to a person are these: first, a matter that reaches the person himself; further, his wife is as his own body (Berakhot 24a); and his children too are as his own body. And the one who said that she used to slap him across the face held that this is why Memucan entered to speak first — to take revenge against her, since Vashti used to slap him across the face this way and that; and therefore Memucan came to take revenge against her, and therefore Memucan entered to speak first. And the one who said that she did not invite his wife to the women's feast held that the shame done to a man's wife is considered a greater distress. For a person forgoes his own distress and shame, but for the shame done to his wife a person does not forgive, and cannot waive it. And the one who said that she did not invite her to the feast [held that] this matter is a shame before other people, and this shame is considered greater than the distress of being struck. And great is the honor of one's wife, as is stated in the Gemara in the chapter "HaZahav" ["The Gold"] (Bava Metzia 59a), and in several other places. Therefore it is more fitting that this should be the reason Memucan was zealous for his wife's honor. And the one who said it was because he had a daughter held that a person does more for the benefit of his children. Therefore it says that because he had a daughter, and wished to marry her to Ahasuerus — and this matter is a benefit to himself — he entered to speak first. But because of revenge, in which there is no benefit, a person does not enter to speak first for such a reason, for it is not fitting for him to be one who leaps to the fore for this. And also, according to this Midrash, his name is called "Memucan" because he was "prepared" (mukhan) to bring about Vashti's punishment, for the reason mentioned. "And Memucan said, etc." (verse 16). According to reasoning, it is difficult [to understand] what he said, "Not against the king alone, etc." — for is a wrong done to the officials considered greater than what is done to the king? This is like (Kiddushin 6a) [the expression] "Yehudah ve'od lekara" [a Talmudic idiom used to dismiss a weak inference]. And further it is difficult: for the king asked only (verse 15), "According to the law, what is to be done" — regarding Vashti's refusal to come at the king's command, which was a disgrace and insult to the king. Yet he [Memucan] answered a different matter, "Not against the king alone has she done wrong, etc." — and it is not the way of the wise to answer what was not asked, especially when the questioner was the king. And it may be said: these officials, seeing that the sons of Issachar had removed themselves from [rendering] the judgment because they were afraid — for if they were to say to put Vashti to death, the king might later regret it, and evil would come to them as a result (Megillah 12b) — these officials could not remove themselves from this, for it says (above, verse 13), "for so was the king's manner, before all who knew law and judgment." Therefore they said, "Not against the king alone has Vashti done wrong, etc." — meaning that the judgment does not pertain to the king alone, but to all the officials of the provinces as well. Therefore, if the king should later regret it and say, "Had they not already judged her to death, I would not judge her now, for I regret this" — they therefore said: had this matter pertained to the king alone, and had she wronged only him, the king could regret it, since the matter reaches only the king. But Vashti wronged the officials [too], and regarding this one cannot say that the king would retract, since this judgment does not pertain to the king alone but to the officials as well — and therefore regret has no place here. And there is another way to resolve this: thus said Memucan — [anticipating the question,] "why do we not say, 'the queen is in your hand, do with her as you wish, and you may forgive her'"; and regarding this he said that it is not in the king's power to forgive what she did to all the officials of Persia and Media. But it appears that according to this, the first difficulty is even greater — for King Ahasuerus asked "according to the law, what is to be done" only regarding what she did to disgrace the king, not what she did to disgrace the officials. Therefore it appears correct to explain that Memucan's intent was this: that if he were to say that the queen sinned against the king and that there is upon her a sentence of death, it would appear as though he were diminishing the king's honor. For a great king like Ahasuerus — it is not considered that anyone could do him a disgrace. If someone were to spit before the king, the king would pay it no heed. Even though, in truth, his wrath burned within him (above, verse 12), and he certainly was troubled about this matter — it was not because of the disgrace, but rather because he was distressed that she did not do his will, and that she nullified his joy and his desire. But to say that she did something very grave in disgracing so great a king as himself — this is not considered a disgrace to the king. Furthermore, at the drinking of the feast, when he was drunk, his wrath burned within him; but were his mind clear upon him, this matter — what she did to a great king — would not be considered by him a disgrace, and this deed, that Vashti was put to death, would be considered by him even more of a disgrace. And concerning this he said, "Not against the king alone, etc." — meaning, had she done this only to the king, one could say: a great king like Ahasuerus — what disgrace could possibly be done to him, except were he a lowly king? And the king was not troubled by his own disgrace, but only for the sake of the officials, and on this the judgment and verdict that was carried out could be grounded. And one should not object: if so, that a small and lowly person disgraced an important one, there should be no judgment for this, since the great one does not receive disgrace from the lowly one — for this is no difficulty. For certainly, even though the great one does not receive shame from the small one, in the end the sin of the one who shames him is great, in that he shamed him. And certainly, anyone who denies the fundamental principle [of faith] — what has he actually done to the Holy One, blessed be He? And nevertheless his iniquity is greater than can be borne, for he ought not to have done it, and he receives his punishment for this, and it is fitting to remove from the world that which is evil, and therefore it is fitting that he receive punishment. But here one cannot say this, for certainly Vashti was beloved in Ahasuerus's eyes as well, since he came to display her beauty (above, verse 11), and he used to praise her. And were there no disgrace to the king — since the king does not receive disgrace from a lowly person — she should not be put to death, for the king too would suffer harm [from her death]. Therefore Memucan said, "Not against the king alone has Vashti done wrong, but against all the officials" — and the wording "against the king alone has Vashti done wrong" implies that in any case she did wrong against the king as well, for even though the king does not receive shame from a commoner — since what can a woman do to him? — nevertheless, the one who does so has committed a wrong, and for this reason he needed to say, "Not against the king alone has she done wrong." And now is resolved what is said (below, verse 18), "and there shall be much contempt and wrath" — why did he need to say that there is contempt here, since certainly this was a disgrace? Rather, he meant: had she wronged the king alone, one could say there is no disgrace here. But "not against the king alone," rather "against all the officials" — as if Vashti had said that no wife is subject to her husband at all — and this matter does not touch the king alone, but all the officials; therefore it is "much contempt and wrath," for it is fitting to be wrathful. And one cannot say that being wrathful over this is itself a disgrace to the king, for he had no shame over this, being a great king who does not receive shame from a lesser person — rather, it was "against all the officials that Vashti did wrong," and therefore "much contempt and wrath." And according to its plain sense, it appears that "much contempt" [refers to the fact] that wives would hold their husbands in contempt, and there would be "wrath" as a result, and for this reason alone it is fitting to remedy the matter, so that it should not occur further. And even had we no need to remedy such a thing on account of the disgrace a wife would show her husband, nevertheless there would be wrath, each man against his wife, and there would be no peace at all between husband and wife. And this is the ruin of the world, when there is no peace between a man and his wife. So it appears according to the plain sense. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 4:8): "much contempt and wrath" — Rav said: the contempt was commensurate with the wrath [that came] upon her. And Shmuel said: this wrath was commensurate with the contempt. Rabbi Chanina said: the contempt with which her father held the vessels of the Temple in contempt was commensurate with this wrath, that he [the king] was wrathful enough to put her to death. [Thus far the Midrash.] And the explanation of this: they had the difficulty that it is written, "much contempt and wrath" — why did it need to say this, since certainly there was contempt here? And they explained it as stated. And their dispute is this: according to the one who says the wrath is commensurate with the contempt — because the wrath follows from the contempt, since it was because she showed him contempt that the wrath came — he means that the wrath was fitting and proportionate to that contempt which she committed, and that this wrath, which was very great, was fitting for it. And according to the one who says the contempt is commensurate with the wrath, he held that, on the contrary, Hashem, may He be blessed, wanted to bring wrath upon Vashti so that the redemption should come, and in order to bring about the wrath, the Holy One, blessed be He, caused Vashti to hold the king in contempt. And regarding this he said that the contempt was for [the purpose of bringing about] the wrath. The general principle is this: the effect that results from a thing can always be said to be commensurate with, and fitting for, the thing that caused it. According to the one view, the cause was the contempt, and the wrath results from the contempt. According to the other view, the cause was the wrath — for Hashem, may He be blessed, wanted the wrath — and for the wrath to come into actuality a cause was needed, and that was the contempt. Thus the contempt follows from and is caused by the wrath, since Hashem, may He be blessed, wanted it, etc. Therefore he expounded that "the contempt is for the sake of the wrath" — and this is clear. And Rabbi Chanina held that the meaning of the verse is this: reason does not allow that such contempt should be shown to King Ahasuerus, unless it were because Queen Vashti had shown contempt to the supreme King, and this matter was the cause that she should also disgrace a king of flesh and blood. Therefore he said that because of the contempt she showed the supreme King, wrath from a king of flesh and blood would come upon her. "And the king was very wrathful, and his fury burned within him" (above, verse 12). According to the wording, it should not have said "very," since afterward it says, "and his fury burned within him." Or it should have said, "and the king was very wrathful," and should not have said, "and his fury burned within him," at all. Rather, it comes to say that the king was very wrathful, and afterward it says "and his fury burned within him" — meaning, from Heaven came [an act] to kindle his fury. And this is comparable to coals that lie before a person and do not raise a flame, until a wind comes from another place and blows, so that the flame rises. So too Ahasuerus was very wrathful, and the decree of Hashem, may He be blessed, brought the flame into actuality; and this was like a wind that came from another place and brought the flame into actuality. And there were two things here: "and the king was very wrathful" — of his own accord; "and his fury burned within him" — from Heaven. And so they said in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 3:15): "and the king was very wrathful, and his fury burned within him" — Rabbi Yochanan said: at that moment the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the angel appointed over wrath: "Blow a spark, blow upon the ashes, and cast sulfur." [Thus far.] Likewise he [the Midrash] noted precisely that it is written, "and the king was very wrathful, and his fury burned within him," for it should have said only "and the king was wrathful and his fury burned within him." Rather, it comes to say that the king was very wrathful, and his fury came into actuality through the angel. For we have already explained that this matter was the beginning of the salvation of Israel, and therefore it came from Above, from Hashem, may He be blessed. "For the matter of the queen shall go forth, etc." (verse 17). Here it mentions "the queen" alone, and does not say "for the matter of Vashti the queen shall go forth." This is because here it speaks only of the report heard throughout the whole province — and the report that is heard is heard only as "so did the queen do," without mentioning her name, since not everyone knows her name. [And it is difficult:] is it because of one single woman, Vashti, doing so, that the others should do so too? Would everyone learn from one person? Have we not found many instances of people doing deeds that others ought not to do, yet not all the world learns from them? It appears that the reason is that Vashti spoke words of reason, and therefore there is cause for concern that everyone will learn from her, since her words are words of reason and sound judgment. And this is [explained as follows]: Ahasuerus said to bring Vashti the queen to him, and she did not come. And she said that a man seeks after his wife, but a wife does not seek after her husband — and so did the Sages say. This is because the woman was taken from his rib (Genesis 2:21), and by this the man becomes deficient when he is without a wife. And anyone who is missing something seeks after the thing that completes him. But the woman is not deficient. Even though the woman wants to be married more than the man wants to marry her (Gittin 49b), this is because the man is more significant, and the woman wants to cling to one who is significant. But regarding "seeking after," the man is called deficient when he has no wife. And so said our Rabbis, of blessed memory (Kiddushin 2b): the owner of a lost object seeks after his lost object — [meaning,] he who is deficient when he has no wife must seek after her. And even though he has already married her, nevertheless, when the wife is not with him, the husband is likewise deficient, and must seek after her. Even though, in truth, when a man has no wife he must seek after her — for the owner of a lost object seeks after his lost object — nevertheless, once he has already married her, the wife is under her husband's authority, and must accept her husband's decree even where it is not fitting. Nevertheless, people do not make this distinction. And since there is here a reason of some substance, people will be drawn after it, and it will become a disgrace to all men. Now, for an ordinary man of no importance, the wife does not care about this, and is drawn along after her husband. But the wives of the officials are important, and are particular about this matter, and will say it is not fitting that the wife be drawn after the man — on the contrary, the wife is the completion of the man, and the man must be drawn after his completion. Therefore it says, "For the matter of the queen shall go forth, etc." And it is possible that Ahasuerus too, so that this should not be said, therefore said "to bring Vashti" (above, verse 11, and verse 17), rather than that Vashti should come before him of her own accord. This is because when the chamberlains bring her, this constitutes his seeking after her, since it is the messengers who bring her to the king. And regarding this Vashti said that, in the end, she must come [on her own], and a wife does not seek after her husband — for it is impossible that she be brought entirely [passively]; rather, she must come as well [of her own volition]. And regarding this it says (verse 17), "and she did not come" — that there should be a coming on her own part, since a wife does not seek after her husband.

For the affair of the queen will extend to all women. That she showed contempt for the king, [this will cause] all the women to show contempt for their husbands as well.

The Questions: How is it possible that for this sin — that the wives would despise their husbands — the queen should be put to death? Could he not simply issue a decree from now on that every man should rule in his own house? And what is the meaning of "for the matter of the queen will go forth"? "For [the matter] will go forth" — now he explains his words, clarifying first how it pertains to all the peoples. For in truth, only the princesses of Persia and Media were present with Vashti, and they heard and knew the substance of the matter and the entire dispute that occurred between them [Vashti and the king], and they knew that her refusal to come stemmed from his wish to lower her from her standing, to deny her kingship. They would not despise their husbands [over this], for in Vashti's view he had asked of her a great thing; rather, they would relate the substance of the matter to the princes, whereby the king's honor would be profaned, in that it would be said that his kingship is limited. But the wives of the [common] peoples, who were not there and did not know the substance of the matter, would hear only the plain story — that Ahasuerus summoned Vashti and she refused to come — and from this they would draw a kal va-chomer [an a fortiori inference] to despise their husbands. This is what is meant by "for the matter of the queen will go forth to all the women" — in that the matter of the queen will spread by the mouths of those who relate it, who will hear the matter after a few days, each from another, without knowing the substance of the deed; this will produce the harmful effect that they will despise their husbands in their own eyes, [reasoning] that if the husband commands his wife to perform some service for him, she will be brazen and answer him: (a) Behold, King Ahasuerus, who is a king; (b) who said [merely] to bring Queen Vashti — who is not queen in her own right but only through him; (c) who said only to bring her before him, which is a small matter — and even so she did not come. How much more so you, who are not a king, and I, who am not queen through you but am merely your equal in standing, and yet you ask of me not merely to come before you, but to perform hard labor — how much more so do I not need to listen to you! And through this the wives will cease to obey their husbands, and this incident will become a byword and a taunt in everyone's mouth. This is what pertains to all the peoples.

The noblewomen in Persia and Media will say, etc. This thing to all the king’s ministers. This is an abbreviated verse. Causing enormous disparagement and rage. And in this matter there is much contempt and wrath. — Notes: (30) Esther Rabbah 4:8. “Contempt” because she had insulted him, and “wrath” because she had disobeyed him. The Gra explains the difference between the two terms חמה (fury) and קצף (anger). The latter [קצף] is displayed outwardly for all to see, and the former (;חמה one keeps to himself.

"And this day" — it will be spoken, and it functions as a direct object. "And there will be enough (kedai) contempt" — this contempt and wrath, [enough of it], will arise between a man and his wife.

The Questions: The words "and this day" have no clear sense [in context], and also it is not stated what the princesses of Persia and Media will say. And what is the meaning of the doubling of "contempt" and "wrath"? "And this day" — now he explains what pertains to the princes. For the princesses of Persia and Media, who were at this feast and heard the matter of the queen and the entire dispute that occurred between them [the king and Vashti] in detail — they, this very day, will tell the whole matter of the queen to all the king's princes. In such a way that this very day, which you set aside to accomplish your purpose that the princes agree with you that you shall reign as an unlimited king, your plan will be undone by the fact that the wives of the princes will tell their husbands that Vashti maintains that she has a share in your kingship, and that the kingship is yours by inheritance through her; and if you do not put her to death, then you will be agreeing with her, and your entire plan will be nullified. And thus, inevitably, there will be "enough contempt" among the peoples, in that the wives will despise their husbands, and "wrath" among the princes, who will be angered that your kingdom will remain a limited kingdom.

"And this day [the princesses of Persia and Media] shall say, etc." (verse 18). The explanation is that the wives of the officers of Persia and Media, who heard that Vashti spoke this way to King Ahasuerus, will likewise say the same things to their husbands, "and there will be enough contempt and wrath." Now this is difficult, for the expression of "saying" [amirah] occurs only when one person tells another a single piece of information, but not concerning something like this, where one speaks disparaging words about another — for that kind of thing does not take the expression of amirah. For this reason the sage Rabbi (Eliezer bar Ovadia) [i.e., Abraham ibn Ezra], of blessed memory, was forced in his commentary to explain that "this day" [means the words] will be "said." His view is that the form "amor" applies even to something like this, whereas only the form "vayomer" ("and he said") is used for the recounting of things, where one person tells another; but the form "amor," which is a passive form, applies to something like this — meaning that he wished to say that a thing which is not fit to be said will nonetheless be "said," and matters like these will be "said." And it appears that the explanation of "and this day [the princesses] will say" is that they will speak disparaging words to their husbands just as one who tells another ordinary matters in passing — so light will this seem in their eyes, once they hear the queen's words. And this is why it says "this very day": meaning that it will become so commonplace that it will be regarded as nothing more than the ordinary telling of things that a person recounts all the time — "this very day" they will speak so, just as today people tell of ordinary matters, so will speaking words of disparagement become routine. And this is why it says "the princesses of Persia and Media," for those princesses were present there, since they are near Shushan the capital. But the other women in all the provinces of his kingdom will not speak of it that same day, but only after some time, when this report reaches them. And it further appears that its explanation is that "this day the princesses of Persia and Media will say, etc." means that they will say this in order to boast that they have dominion over their husbands, since this is what Vashti sent word to the king. And according to this it fits well [to say] "and the princesses of Persia and Media will say," and it does not say 'they will speak to their husbands,' for the meaning is not that they will speak disparaging words, but rather that they will repeat these words that Vashti sent to the king, and will say this thing to their husbands, in order to boast of themselves. And this is why it says "and there will be enough contempt and wrath" — for the deed of Vashti will serve as a proof and demonstration that a woman has dominion over her husband, and from this contempt and wrath will follow, for other women will hold their husbands in contempt when they hear the report of the wives of Persia and Media who spoke this way. And it does not mean that "this day [the princesses] will say, etc." implies that they will come into conflict with their husbands — only that she will say these things in order to boast; therefore that very day they will immediately say this thing in order to boast before their husbands, and this matter — that they will hear what was said — will further cause other women to hold their husbands in contempt: "and there will be enough contempt and wrath." And now this also resolves the difficulty: how could it be that because one woman acted wrongly, everyone would be drawn after her? For the explanation is not that the woman will act against her husband, but rather that she will tell her husband what Vashti did, wishing to boast of the matter. And this matter will renew this contempt and wrath toward others when they hear that they are boasting of it, and therefore it says "and this day [the princesses] will say, etc."

A royal edict. A royal decree of revenge, i.e., that he commanded to execute her. — Notes: (31) And let it become a law that any woman guilty of a similar offense against her husband shall be executed. To be recorded in the bylaws of Persia and Media. In the books of the statutes and the customs of the kingdom. Never to be revoked. This statute from among them; this should be a statute and a law for anyone who shows contempt for her husband. — Notes: (32) ממוכן is another name for Haman (Maseches Megillah 12b). Haman was concerned that Achashveirosh might reconsider and take back Vashti, leaving him vulnerable to her vengeance. Haman therefore requested that the decree be irrevocable. That Vashti must never again appear. And therefore she was executed.

"That it not be altered (lo ya'avor)" — that this statute should not depart. "Le-re'utah" (to her companion) — the vav stands in place of the yod of 're'iti' (my companion), which stands in place of the root letter heh.

Behold, I have heard it said, regarding "let a royal word (devar malchut) go forth" — that you might expect the verse to call her "queen." [The claim is:] this term "queen" should go forth from before him, so that she no longer be mentioned by the name "queen," but only "and let it be written ... that Vashti not come" — Vashti alone, without the title. Something close to this is possible according to our own approach, and it is that Memuchan established three things. One: that she wronged not the king alone. Two: that [her sin] should not be attributed to a sin of omission [merely refusing to come], but to an actual transgression. Three: that it is fitting that she be called "Vashti the queen" and not "the queen Vashti," for the kingship is his and not intrinsically hers — as she had imagined in her heart, thinking that she was herself the daughter of kings; rather, her own name is simply "Vashti," and what is added onto that name is her royalty, which comes to her afterward, from him. Now, the first two matters are explained in the preceding verses, and now he comes to explain the third: that the word "queen" must not precede her name. And this is [the meaning of] "if it please the king, let a royal word go forth from him" — that is, the word coming first before him should not be "queen," with her name said afterward, as if the royalty were hers of her own accord. This is [the meaning of] "let a royal word go forth from him"; but in the writing, the name "queen" should not be mentioned for her at all — only "and let it be written that Vashti not come" — alone. For the royalty is yours, and you gave it to her. And he was precise about this in saying "and let the king give her royal estate" — meaning, it is you who gives her the royalty, for it is in your hand to remove it from her and give it to her companion. And likewise this is hinted at in saying "that Vashti not come": for in the absence of her coming before the king, she is called simply "Vashti" — once her royalty is emptied out of her, she is called "Vashti" — and her companion shall be called: any woman devoid of royalty, yet better than she. For it was not hers of her own, and once her royalty is emptied out of her, they will know that all her greatness came to her from the king. Now, regarding his saying "that it not be transgressed (lo ya'avor), that Vashti not come," etc., I have heard it said that "it shall not be transgressed" refers to the folly that they held onto — refusing to come to the king — except that she should come before the king and only afterward be put to death; and this is [the meaning of] "that it not be transgressed, that she not come": [meaning] only that she should come before him. And I think that the one who explained it so paid no heed except to the Megillah as written on parchment, in which there are no disjunctive cantillation marks (te'amim mafsikim); and had he perhaps seen a printed book, he would have retracted his thought, for there is an etnachta (a disjunctive accent marking a pause) on the word "ya'avor." Also, he did not recall the matter of "and Haman's face was covered," which means that he was not to see the king's face, for "in the light of the king's countenance is life," and the king would not be able to put him to death no matter how angry he was with him [once he had seen his face]. And also, Memuchan's intent and counsel was to kill Vashti — so how could he say that she should come before the king and be found alive? Furthermore, according to this, what exactly would be the thing written among the laws of Persia and Media, if it is only "ve-lo ya'avor" ("and it shall not be transgressed"), etc.? It should rather have said "she-lo ya'avor" ("that it not be transgressed"), without the conjunctive vav — for his saying "ve-lo" ("and it shall not," with the vav) makes it appear to be a separate statement, in addition to the [prior] statement, rather than an explanation of it. But the plain sense of the verse, apart from what we have written concerning it, is this: Memuchan feared lest there befall him what sometimes happens when quarrels break out between brothers, or between a man and his father, and one of the people comes to help one side, striking and cursing the one opposing him — for afterward the man and his father, or the man and his brother, make peace with one another, and that [outsider who intervened] becomes an enemy to that man, and they repay him his due upon his own head. Therefore the proper path is for a person, when brothers quarrel with one another, to choose only to make peace, and not to touch the honor of either one of them. Now, from this Memuchan grew afraid, regarding the judgment against the queen, lest the king restore her to her former standing, and thereby repay him his due for having been a wicked counselor urging her death. Therefore he acted shrewdly in three ways. First: that he himself did not issue the decree, but rather told the king that he should decree it — and this is [the meaning of] "if it please the king, let a royal word and decree go forth from him": that he, the king, should be the one to decree it. Second: that it should be in such a way that the king could not go back and make peace with her — [otherwise] Memuchan would be blamed by both of them and hated by them together; and this was accomplished by not letting the matter remain merely oral, but having it written among the laws of Persia and Media, for it is a law of Media and Persia that whatever is written in the king's name cannot be repealed — and this is [the meaning of] "and let it be written ... that it not be transgressed." Third: that what would be written should not be that she die — he did this lest his stance against the queen come to be hated by the king — but rather words from which the matter would only be understood implicitly: namely, that he wrote "that Vashti not come before the king any more," meaning that she should not live. This is an elegant turn of phrase, [implying] that she would not have what belongs to one with whom the king is angry yet who still sees his face, for "in the light of the king's countenance is life" — and he did not mention her death explicitly, out of concern regarding the matter stated. And regarding his saying "who is better than she," I have heard it said that he meant: let the king give her royalty to one whose lineage and merit are not from her ancestors, but whose fitness is from herself — and this is [the meaning of] "who is better than she" (ha-tovah mimenah): for her being good is from herself, on her own account, and not on account of her ancestors, as with Vashti — which is why she did not come at the king's word. And this is correct. Or, it may mean: do not be troubled, saying, perhaps the one who reigns in her place will likewise not be good — for even though she be her counterpart, it is not precluded that she be good; and this she will gain from her, once she knows what was decreed concerning this one — for from her she shall see, and gain wisdom; gain understanding.

The Questions: What is meant by "let a royal decree go forth from him" is unclear — what is this "royal matter"? And especially, what is meant by "and let it be written among the laws of Persia and Media" — for among the laws of the nations, only a law that endures forever is written down, one by which future cases are to be judged; but the killing of Vashti is not an enduring law, only a ruling for the moment. So what does "that it not be altered" mean? "If it pleases the king" — after he [Memucan] had laid out everything that Vashti had done wrong and the loss that resulted from it, and had revealed the king's mind — everything that was in his heart concerning this feast, and that Vashti had thwarted his plan — he came forward like a wise counselor and informed him how these two faults could be corrected through Vashti's execution. First he advised him how to secure his hold on power, so that from now on his kingship would be an unlimited kingship; and this is what is meant by "let a royal decree go forth from him" — he advised that from now on a new statute be established, that no royal matter would ever again go forth from the ministers who make the laws, as had been the practice until now, when the king had no authority to judge or decide anything on his own except through the ministers and counselors of the state. From now on this would no longer be so; rather, any royal matter that goes forth would go forth from him alone. And not only that, but "let it be written among the laws of Persia and Media" — that every ruling that goes forth from the king shall be written among the laws of Persia and Media, so that it remain a fixed law by which every similar case would be judged in the future — "and let it not be altered," but remain a fixed law forever, just as is the case even today among kings, whose rulings remain a standing law in the state (what are called "Gabinets Ordere" — cabinet orders). And the first royal matter would be that Vashti shall no more come before the king. ["And let it be written among the laws of Persia and Media" is a parenthetical remark, referring to all the rulings that would go forth from the king in the future.] And in this too he advised correctly: for if he were to put Vashti to death, people would still say, "But in any case she did not come before the king, and the king was unable to force her to come before him." Therefore he advised that the king issue a decree that Vashti not come before him, so that by this people would say that it was not she who had held back — but rather that afterward it had been her wish to correct her wrongdoing and come, and she could not come before him only because of the king's decree that she not come. And in addition to this, "and her royal position the king shall give to another who is better than she." He packed two intentions into this: one, as the Meforesh commentary wrote, that he would no longer look to her family lineage, but only to whether she was better than Vashti in herself, not on account of her ancestry. And this is the second: he was telling him — do not fear that the second one, too, will rebel against you, for the second one will learn a lesson from Vashti and will be afraid to act as she did, lest what happened to Vashti befall her as well. And this is the meaning of "who is better than she" — the mem [in "mimenah"] is the mem of causation, meaning that it is because of her [Vashti] that she [the new queen] will turn away [from such conduct] and be good.

"If it pleases the king, let it be written among the laws of Persia and Media, that it not be altered" (verse 19). He means to say that it should be written among the laws of Persia and Media that this is what was decreed concerning Queen Vashti, and since this decree was written among the laws of Persia, and not in their chronicles, this decree will not be altered, just as the other laws that were written among the laws of Persia and Media are not altered. "That Vashti shall not come, etc." — this is the judgment that was decreed against her; such is its meaning. Now, even though it is not the way to write among the laws of Persia and Media anything except a matter that constitutes a law and a statute, whereas this matter is only an event that occurred, and such a thing should be written only in the chronicles [and not among the laws] — [the answer is] that this matter, too, was a legal decree, for they rendered judgment and took action even against the queen; if so, it is entirely a statute and a judgment. As for why it does not say "Queen Vashti," as it said earlier (verse 12) "And Queen Vashti refused," whereas here it says "that Vashti shall not come" [without the title], the explanation is as we have said: she had been a commoner, and afterward became queen through her marriage to the king, for the kingdom of Belshazzar had been annulled, and so she had become a commoner. Therefore one cannot say of her that she was a queen before she married the king. But she herself claimed that she was a daughter of kings, and therefore she refused to come before the king, as though the kingship befitted her more, since she was a daughter of kings. Therefore it is written "And Queen Vashti refused" [with the title, reflecting her own claim]. And afterward it says (here) "and let it be written among the laws of Persia and Media, etc.," and this speaks of what would be written about her — that they had sentenced her to death. And there the title "queen" is not written, because that would be a disgrace to the monarchy. Therefore it says "that Vashti shall not come," without mentioning the title of queenship at all. And because he feared that perhaps Ahasuerus would retract this after the sentence of death had been decreed against Vashti, and Vashti would remain in her royal position, in which case she would certainly kill whoever had decreed the sentence of death against her — therefore he said, "let a royal word go forth from him," meaning that this should be a matter of state, and such a matter, being a matter of state, the king does not retract, for that would be a great disgrace to the king. Therefore he said, "let a royal word go forth from him and let it be written in the book of the laws of Persia and Media," and therefore "it shall not be altered." And one should not raise the difficulty that it would not be fitting for an advisor to tell the king that he should not go back on his word — for why should it not be within the king's power to do as he wishes, and if he wishes to retract, let him retract? This is no difficulty, for since it will be impossible to alter it, he will put it entirely out of his mind, and his mind will be at rest. And this is indeed good counsel for the king: that it be written among the laws of Persia and Media and not be altered, and then his mind will be at rest. Therefore it says, "If it please the king, let a royal word go forth from him and let it be written among the laws of Persia and Media, that it not be altered" — and once the matter is done in this way, and it is impossible to change it, he will then have relief, and he will have no more grief. And he said, "and let her royal estate be given to her companion (re'utah) who is better than she." All these matters are so that Vashti would no longer be on his mind. Therefore he said that her royal estate should be given immediately to one who is better than she, so that the king would not remain without a wife. For if he remained without a wife, Vashti would remain on his mind, and he would grieve that he had no wife. Therefore he said, "and let her royal estate be given to her companion." And if this were not so, what need would there be for this advice at all? Surely, if he wished, he could marry whomever he wished; rather, this whole piece of advice was so that he would not grieve over the Vashti whom he had put to death. And certainly this was also so that Ahasuerus would not become angry at the one who gave the advice and kill him — that, too, was his [the advisor's] intention. But he told the king that his advice was so that he would put Vashti out of his mind and not grieve. Therefore he said "to her companion," and why was it necessary to say "to her companion"? It comes only to say that she should resemble Vashti, and therefore she is called "her companion," only that she should be better. For if she were not similar and equal to Vashti in beauty, then he would recall Vashti's beauty and grieve. But since she is "her companion," there will be no difference or distinction for the king, and he will not come to remember Vashti; rather, he will be entirely rid of her from his mind.

"Pitgam" (decree) — like 'davar' (word), and so too in Ecclesiastes, and in Aramaic. "Ki rabbah" (though it is great) — even though it is great, like 'ki am qesheh oref hu' (for it is a stiffnecked people) (Exodus 32:9). "Yitnu yekar" (they will give honor) — it refers back to the phrase 'kol ish' (every man).

"And it shall be heard," etc. — it is fitting to pay attention to his saying "though it is great," for who does not know that a kingdom of 127 provinces is a great kingdom? Rather, it refers back to the queen, to say: even though I said that Vashti should not be honored by having the title "queen" written for her, but only her bare name, nevertheless, when they hear the king's decree, etc., concerning what he did to her — when it is heard throughout all his kingdom, they will be astounded, for she was great and very mighty, a great queen, daughter of mighty kings, and nevertheless this decree was decreed against her. For from this it will follow that all the wives will give honor to their husbands. And this is understood by paying attention to the wording, which says "they shall give": for giving is rightly called "giving" only when the giver gives from what is truly his own. That is: if the wife is honored and greater in standing than her husband, she should not for that reason act haughtily toward him, but rather she should give her honor to her husband, saying: "is not my husband's honor all the greater, in that he has merited to rule over one as honored as I?" — and therefore she shall honor him even if he is lesser than she in standing. And this is [the meaning of] "both great and small." And this was brought about by Heaven, for she was great — Vashti being of the stock of mighty kings — so that by this the wives would say: since she was punished despite being the daughter of ones greater than he, this teaches that it was fitting for her to give honor to her husband; and from her they shall learn, and so they too shall do, giving honor to their husbands.

The Questions: Is it not astonishing what is said, "and it shall be heard, the decree ... for it is great" — what is this "great matter," that he killed the wife of his bosom, and who would restrain him from it? And especially astonishing is what is said, "and all the wives will give honor," which indicates that he would kill her so that it would be heard throughout the kingdom and the wives would learn to give honor to their husbands — this is foolish and very disgraceful advice, that the king should kill the wife of his bosom for such a thing. Also, what is meant by saying "from great to small" and not "from small to great" — see above (vav, heh). "And it shall be heard" — now he explains how by this means he would achieve the correction of everything that had gone wrong. For by establishing the law that from now on a royal decree would go forth from him without the counsel of the officials, thereby from now on "the king's decree which he shall make ... shall be heard" — whatever the king himself does, even without the counsel of the ministers, will be heard throughout his kingdom, and there will be no one to defy his word, "for it is great" — for the king's decree, of itself, will be a fixed law that will not be altered. And by this he would gain the rule of an unlimited kingdom [as a second benefit]. And by imposing judgment on Vashti he would gain that all the wives would give honor to their husbands, even though one be great and the other small — meaning, that even when she is greater than him in lineage, she will nonetheless give him honor.

"And the king's decree, etc." (verse 20). Explanation: the king's decree to put Queen Vashti to death would be heard throughout all the provinces of his kingdom. "For it is great" — this decree to put a queen to death — and therefore the decree would be heard throughout his entire kingdom, since the decree is great. And in the Midrash (Esther Rabbah 4:10): Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Yitzchak [disagreed]. Rabbi Levi said: a great pronouncement are we destined to hear from this one who will enter into the kingdom — and what is it? (below, 4:3) "There was great mourning among the Jews." Rabbi Yitzchak said: a great pronouncement are we destined to hear from this one who will enter into the kingdom — and what is it? (below, 8:16) "The Jews had light, joy, and gladness, and honor." And it appears that this Midrash was troubled by the fact that it should have said "which was done," not "which shall be done," for at the time it is heard it has already been done, and therefore it should have said "which was done." Therefore it expounds "and the king's decree shall be heard" [to mean] that from this deed — namely, the killing of Vashti — another deed would be heard about; and what is it? "There was great mourning among the Jews," etc. This is because when Hashem, may He be blessed, brought the remedy before the wound — that Esther should enter the house of Ahasuerus — He then brought upon them the trouble of Haman, because that generation had sinned. Therefore, "and the king's decree shall be heard" — that is, the killing of Vashti — [means that] the trouble which Hashem, may He be blessed, decreed on account of Israel's sin would be heard about. And the other [Sage] held that the killing of Vashti was not in order to bring punishment upon Israel, but rather in order to give them supreme success, as it is written (below, 8:16), "The Jews had light, joy, and gladness, and honor" — and this came about through the agency of Esther, and it was for this purpose that death was decreed upon Vashti. And the Midrash further states (Esther Rabbah 4:10): Rabbi Yehuda said, "and the king's decree shall be heard" — [this refers to] the King of kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, [who said, in His wisdom and understanding] (Exodus 17:14), "I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek," etc. And he held that the killing of Vashti was in order to kill Haman, since Hashem, may He be blessed, had decreed concerning him, "I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek." Therefore death was decreed upon Vashti, and Esther entered in her place, and she killed Haman the oppressor. And according to all [these views], the verse comes to say that the killing of Vashti was not by chance, but rather Hashem, may He be blessed, did this. According to the one who said [it was] in order to bring great mourning upon the Jews — because the expression "for it is great" implies something great, and great mourning is a great decree. And according to the one who said, "the Jews had light" — this is a very great thing, and it is fitting to say "for it is great." And according to the one who said [it was] the killing of Haman to blot out the memory of Amalek — this is a very great and mighty thing. And the Midrash further states (Esther Rabbah 4:10): "For it is great" — Rav and Shmuel [disagreed]. One said: this great kingdom [corresponds] to this great sin. And one said: this great sin [corresponds] to this great kingdom. [Thus far the Midrash.] And the explanation of this is: according to the one who said, "this great kingdom [corresponds] to this great sin," he held that "for it is great" means to say that the kingdom is great, and the sin that Vashti committed against the whole kingdom is also very great. And do not say that even though the sin is great, the kingdom is not great, and if so this would not be considered a great rectification, since the kingdom is not great. Therefore he said the kingdom is great in relation to this sin which is great, and certainly this is a great rectification when this matter is rectified. And the other held that the sin is great in relation to this kingdom which is great — he held that the sin is the main point, only he means to say: do not say that even though the kingdom is great, the sin is not so great, and if so this would not be so great a rectification; concerning this he said that the sin is great in relation to this kingdom which is great, and if so this matter is a great rectification. For the one who holds the sin is the main point, since the sin is great there is need to rectify the matter so that the sin will no longer occur, but since the kingdom is also great, the killing of Vashti is considered a greater rectification. And according to the one who says the opposite — that a matter which occurs within a kingdom that is great requires rectification, and this is the main point — but since the sin is so great, this matter requires rectification all the more.

"And the word pleased" — he is saying: behold, the princes and the wise men who knew the times were present there — Carshena, Shethar, etc. He says that the matter was pleasing only in the eyes of the king and the princes, because of their honor, since she did not deem them significant enough to come before them; but in the eyes of the wise men who were in charge of judgment, it was not right to sentence her to a sentence of death. Nevertheless, the king paid no heed to them, on account of the honor of the princes, and he acted according to the word of Memucan, even though Memucan was a single individual and the smallest of his seven colleagues — for he did not even ask their opinion, to see what they would say: whether they too might tip the verdict of the majority, seeing that they were greater and better than he, and he was the smallest of them all — for the reason that we have written. Rather, "and the king did according to the word of Memucan" alone.

"And it pleased" — since for this matter, that he should reign with an unlimited kingship, the agreement of the ministers was necessary, it states that the ministers agreed with the king on this; and from then on the power of the ministers was removed, and the governance of the law remained with the king alone. "And the king did according to the word of Memucan" — without needing the agreement of the ministers.

"And the thing pleased the king and the princes, and the king did according to the word of Memucan" (verse 21). It should have said "and he did so," as it says afterward (below, 2:4), "And the thing pleased the king, and he did so." Rather, because he advised something novel, and nevertheless it was done, therefore it wrote, "and he did according to the word of Memucan" — [to indicate] that he was a lone individual, and this advice was not [shared] by others, for all the wise men of the world would not have advised in this way. Rather, this was from Hashem, may He be blessed, as [was said], in order that Esther should enter in her place.

And his people’s language be the one spoken. He can compel his wife to learn his language if her native tongue is different. — Notes: (33) Ibid. 4:12. The purpose for this law was to make wives show respect and subjugation to their husbands.

"that every man should bear rule in his own house" — he rules over his wife, and he should not depart from the custom of the men of his own tongue, even to the point of speaking in a different language. And some say that another matter was mixed together with this measure, so that it would not be a disgrace to the king.

"And he sent letters" — Now, to our Sages of blessed memory (Chazal), this appeared to be a great folly, in that they say: "Is not even a bald man a master (pardashna) in his own house?" And it is said that from Hashem of Hosts did this matter go forth: he would write this folly so that the enemies of the Jews would not send their unjust hands into the letters that Haman had caused to be written against the Jews to destroy them. And the later commentators (Acharonim) wrote that no spirit of folly entered him, to write such foolishness as that wives should give honor to their husbands; rather, that he wrote the whole episode — mentioning Vashti, and what she had done, and what had been decreed upon her — and from this it would follow that every man should be master in his own house. And from the fact that it was written "to every people according to its own language," it followed that every people would speak the language of its own people, and they would not all unite into a single language, for the glory of the king — so that it would be recognized that he ruled over many peoples through the multiplicity of languages, which would not be recognized were they all to turn into a single language. Now this would seem strange: that if the king had written in his own language to the other peoples, they would all have turned into a single language. But what is correct in my view is that he means: the mere writing of what was decreed upon Vashti is not sufficient to make all the women give honor to their husbands, lest those who read his letter say, "the case is not comparable — perhaps it is not the law that all women must give honor to their husbands, even one of higher lineage than her husband, but rather [it applied to Vashti] because the king's hand is powerful, to put to death those who transgress his will, or because it concerns a matter of state," unlike the case of other men. Therefore he acted wisely to demonstrate that this is not so, but rather that king and commoner are equal in this: for he sent to every province in its own script, and not in the script of the king's own province, to demonstrate that even though he is a king who rules over every province, he writes to each province in its own script — because in their own place they are the rulers and the notable ones, and the letter goes to their place, which is, for them, like their own home, and they are like homeowners there, so it is fitting to honor them by writing to them in their own script. And from this it is to be learned that every man should be master in his own house — for behold, the king himself accords honor to all the people of a province in their own home by writing to them in their own script, and this can only be to teach that it is fitting that every man be master in his own house. And just as Vashti was held liable to the king for transgressing his will, so is every wife obligated to be subservient to her husband. And this follows a kal vachomer (an a fortiori argument): if the king lowers himself to honor all the people of a province within their own domain, how much more so should a wife who comes into her husband's house — even one who is great, a daughter of kings — be subservient to the man in his house. And this is [the meaning of] "every man," extending even to one of the smallest standing — for who is greater than the king? Yet he accords honor to all the people of the province within their own home and domain. And from the fact that he wrote to every people in its own language — beyond the writing being in its own script — it is to be learned that every man, in his own house, should speak the language of his own people; so that if the wife is from another nation — as with King Ahasuerus, who was of Median stock, while she [Vashti] was Chaldean — a man should not lower himself to speak to her in the language of her people, but rather in the language of his own people, and she should learn his language in order to understand him, for she is subservient to him. And this is learned from the fact that the king wrote "to every people according to its own language": because with regard to every people, since it is within its own home and place, the king lowers himself to speak to it in the language of that people, and not in the language of the king — how much more so should a wife who comes into the man's house speak in his language and be subservient to him, even if she is a king's daughter, for who is greater than the king? Yet when he comes into the domain of each people, he speaks in their language. Now our Sages of blessed memory (Chazal) said that at the king's feast, all the officers of Persia and Media were defiling their mouths, speaking about the women — whether the Median women were more beautiful, or the Persian women — and the king answered them: "Behold, the vessel that I use is neither Median nor Persian, but Chaldean, and there is none like her in the whole world. If you wish, I will send for her, so that you may see her." They said, "She must be naked, to show her beauty." Then he sent Mehuman, etc., to bring her naked. And with this we shall explain the matter of the verses. When his wrath over the one who had transgressed his will had subsided, "the king remembered Vashti" — meaning, [he remembered] the one about whom he used to boast that there was none as beautiful as her in all his kingdom, and now he had lost her, and he thought in his heart: "Had she done a shameful thing deserving of death, I would have kept silent" — but he remembered Vashti, who was important and dear to him, "and what she had done" — that, on the contrary, it was fitting to credit her with merit, for she had held fast to the attribute of modesty, that her honor as a king's daughter should remain within — and [yet] he saw "what had been decreed upon her," to die. Therefore his comfort was hidden from his eyes over the loss that he had suffered, and over there being "no violence in her hands." And this is [the meaning of] "he remembered Vashti," and also "what she had done," which was proper, and "what had been decreed upon her," which was improper. And included in this matter, in that it says "Vashti" and not "the queen," he intended to say that even had she not been a queen, but merely like other [ordinary] women, what was done to her would have been improper. Therefore the king's young men answered him: "There is a remedy. For whereas you have lost that about which you used to boast — that there was none like her in all the provinces of your kingdom — let them seek, etc.; and let the king appoint, etc." — in such a way that you will now be able to boast in truth that when she reigns, you will not find one like her in all the provinces, for she will be chosen from among all of them; and station all the chosen ones together in Shushan, so that they will be near one to another — unlike with Vashti, about whom you used to boast without having seen all the women besides her, and perhaps, had you seen all the rest, they might have seemed more pleasing in your eyes than she; in such a way that [your former boast] was [merely] a matter of doubt, whereas this one will be certain. And lest you say, upon seeing the other women, that still none compares to Vashti — see now, that Vashti was never seen before you except adorned with women's cosmetics; therefore do the same also for these, and then you will discern and see whether she pleases you. And this is [the meaning of] "and let their cosmetics be given," and then, "and the maiden who pleases," etc. And he further hinted that one might reject this counsel, [saying] that it is not good — for who among the notables of the provinces, who has a daughter fair of form and beautiful of appearance, would present her and bring her to be put to the test — if the king desires her, he takes her, and if not, she returns to her father's house, humiliated and of sorrowful spirit, for she had already been possessed by him — and how much more so if they are from provinces far from the king, for both she and her father would be put to shame, since she would return to distant places in disgrace. Therefore it says, "and the maiden who is pleasing, etc., shall reign" — it does not say "the king shall take her," but rather "she shall reign in place of Vashti" — meaning, that all the chosen ones would be taken and would be in the hand of Hegai, keeper of the king's women, for they would become wives to the king; but the advantage that would accrue to the maiden who is pleasing, etc., is that she alone would reign in place of Vashti, whereas the others would become wives to him and would lack nothing — except the kingship — as will be explained further on, with Hashem's help.

The Questions: Why does it recount that he sent to every province according to its own script? The body of the letters is foolish talk — that every man should rule in his own house. Also, as for his commanding that each should speak according to the language of his people — no men of ability could find their hands [could grasp how this was to be carried out] — what did he intend by this command? Based on this, he issued the first law, that every man should speak according to the language of his people. He did this with wisdom and knowledge, for until now it was the law of Persia that all the peoples subjugated under them, when they wrote to the king, and likewise the letters that came from the king to them, had to be in the Persian language, which was the language of the ruling nation. Because of this, everyone had to learn the Persian language. But now that Ahasuerus had established that it was not the province that ruled, but he himself who ruled over all, it followed that there was no difference between the province of Persia and the other places of his dominion, since all of them were subjugated under him and were servants to him equally. Consequently, the Persian script and language had no advantage over the other languages of the nations, for the kingdom was no longer called by the name of Persia, but by the name of Ahasuerus. Therefore he wrote to every people in its own language, and issued the law that each man should speak according to the language of his people. The second law he issued was that every man should rule in his own house. For until now it was the law of Persia that the wife would submit to her husband only to honor him, but he issued a law that the husband should dominate her and rule over her as a master over his maidservant, and could deal with her as he judged fit, as with an item of his own purchased property — just as it still is today in part of the countries of Africa. And these two new laws were counterbalancing measures against the two things that Memucan had mentioned: corresponding to 'he shall reign alone without limitation,' he issued the law that all languages should be equal; and corresponding to 'that all wives will give honor to their husbands,' he issued the law that every man should rule in his own house. However, as to why this passage is placed before the narrative of the Megillah, and why we are obligated to read it on Purim as though it too belongs to the account of the miracle — I think there are two reasons for this. The first, which is the primary reason to my mind, is that the substance of this account is a foundational basis for the narratives that follow it. For had the king not exerted himself to reign with unlimited kingship, it would not have been possible for him to take Esther, since the counselors would not have agreed to gather virgin maidens for the king to choose a wife from among them — let alone to take a wife whose people and birth were unknown to him — nor would Haman's elevation have been possible, since he could not have done this without the permission of the officials, and how much more so the general decree to destroy an entire nation. And this is what is meant by [the saying]: 'Had it not been for the first letters, the last letters would not have been fulfilled' — meaning, had the first law not been issued, that the king alone rules over the laws and customs and no one besides him, it would not have been possible for the last letters to be issued, since permission would have had to be taken from the counselors a second time — since this miracle contained nothing that departed from natural inference. For that the fairest of women should change the will of the king her husband is something that happens most of the time, and this would not be a miracle or a wonder, except if we look carefully at the king in whom this event occurred. For if this happens frequently with lesser kings, it would not happen so easily with a king who is feared by the kings of the earth. For this reason, [Scripture] made known beforehand: (1) the greatness of his kingdom, that he reigned over 127 provinces; (2) his might, that he conquered them all in a short time; (3) his wealth, evident from the great feast; (4) his wisdom, how he conducted himself with stratagems to remove from the hearts of the leaders of the peoples of the land [any thought of limiting him], so that he might reign over them without limitation; (5) his nature and character, that although he loved Vashti to the point of death, nevertheless, out of love of the good — lest the women of the provinces despise their husbands in their own eyes — or out of love of the useful — that he might reign with unlimited kingship — he set aside his love of the pleasant, with which he had loved Vashti. And in all this it is evident to every observer that what caused Esther to change his heart, to reverse the letters of Haman's plan, was not that love of the pleasant that swayed him, but rather that this was from Hashem.

"And he sent letters, etc." (verse 22). The meaning appears to be: after Ahasuerus saw this act of Vashti's, which was not in accordance with the order of the world — for by the order of the world the wife is subordinate to her husband, but Vashti refused to heed a matter that belongs to the order of the world and its custom, while the king stands ready and prepared to be the guardian of order — and when Ahasuerus saw this change of order in Vashti, he considered this matter a disgrace to the king, who was appointed to safeguard order and governance. He therefore wrote that all the provinces should conduct themselves according to order, both in the governance of the household, that it be orderly, and in the governance of the provinces as a whole. He therefore said that "every man should bear rule in his own house," and that everything be according to his word — this is a command to the master of the house, that he oversee his household and rule over its members, and that the governance of his household follow the order of the world. And the master of the house himself should likewise conduct himself in an orderly way, and should "speak according to the language of his people," and not depart from order by speaking a language other than the language of his people. By this everything would be orderly: when the governance of his household is orderly, and the general order is likewise conducted in an orderly way, such that each person speaks in his own language, with no mixing of languages here. And when this is so, everything stands in order, and there is also no departure from order in other matters. And this is the honor of the king, whose role is to safeguard order. And in the Gemara (Megillah 12b): "'That every man should bear rule in his own house' — Rava said: Were it not for the first letters, no remnant of the haters of Israel would have survived. They said: What is this that he has sent us — 'that every man should bear rule' in his own house? Obviously — even a poor man is master in his own house!" — thus far the quote. According to this, it appears that these words were nothing but the granting of authority, that "every man should bear rule in his own house and speak according to the language of his people." And if he has a language of his own, they compel her to speak in the language of his people. And this matter did not need to be written in the verse at all, unless this too belongs to the matter of the redemption, like the killing of Vashti — "and were it not for the first letters, etc." And one should not raise a difficulty: since he sent them word that the Jews should take vengeance on their enemies (below, 8:13), why did they do so [only later] (below, 9:2, 5), and did the first letters not take effect, such that there is no substance to the words of Ahasuerus? This is not a difficulty. For the meaning is not that they did not carry out the word of King Ahasuerus; rather, that were it not for the first letters, they would have hastened to kill them immediately. And even though the letters stated that on the thirteenth of the month of Adar they would kill them (below, 3:13) — because they said that the time was set for the month of Adar since there is a long way to travel to the 127 provinces, and therefore the time was set for the thirteenth of the month of Adar — nevertheless, the zealous act early, whenever possible (Pesachim 4b). Rather, since Ahasuerus's governance was not conducted with counsel and wisdom, and he would say one thing today and not say the same thing tomorrow — therefore, even though he commanded concerning the Jews that they be killed, it was possible that he did not do this with counsel and wisdom, and that tomorrow he would retract it; therefore they did not act early. But for them to transgress the king's decree because of the first letters, and to say that the king was foolish on account of the first letters — this is not something one can say at all. And therefore they did not transgress the king's command, which said to take vengeance on their enemies. And one should not raise a difficulty: were not his advisers great sages? Why then did they write this, "that every man should bear rule in his own house"? This is not a difficulty, since, as we have said, the cause was from Hashem, blessed be He, so that this matter would become a redemption for Israel, as we have said, and Hashem, blessed be He, brought this about. Furthermore, their intent was that the man should rule over his wife, only they did not wish to write this explicitly, so that it not be, as it were, a disgrace to women, which would bring about strife. So he wrote, "that every man should bear rule in his own house and speak according to the language of his people," and his intent was not that he rule in his house [in general], but rather the intent concerned his wife — that he not give her any dominion over him in any matter. And if he has a language of his own, he compels her to speak in his language. Only they [the advisers] did not understand his intent, yet this matter [nonetheless] brought about redemption for Israel. It is also possible to say that they did intend as we have explained — that he arranged two governances: the first, the governance of the household; and the second, the governance of the public at large, as we said above, that both should be in the hand of the man — and they did not understand this, and it was from Hashem, blessed be He, as we have said.