Daf Ditty Megillah 11: Achashverosh’s Identity

Having proven himself as a poet, John Piper has written another masterpiece,
retelling the story of Esther. This two-part poem begins with Mordecai talking with
his teenage cousin Hadassah (Esther), whom he is raising. He explains how her
grandfather had a prophetic dream about freedom in the land of Susa, and how his
aunt and uncle (Esther’s parents) began the journey. Esther’s mother, he explains,
died in childbirth, and her father died only two years later. Part two fast-forwards to
Esther looking back and explaining how she became queen to her son, and what
God’s providential purposes were in saving the Jews. This moving story is complete
with illustrations by artist Glenn Harrington, and will inspire faith in God through
fictional poetry about the nonfictional story of Esther.1

1
https://www.desiringgod.org/books/esther

1
The Gemara continues with its explanation of the book of Esther, beginning with a discussion of
the name Ahasuerus. Rav said: The name should be viewed as a contraction: The brother of the
head [aḥiv shel rosh] and of the same character as the head [ben gilo shel rosh]. Rav explains:
The brother of the head, i.e., the brother of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, who is called
“head,” as it is stated:

-‫ִדּי דארין )ָד ְי ִרין( ְבֵּני‬-‫לח וְּבָכל‬
‫ ְיַהב‬,‫ְשַׁמָיּא‬-‫ֲאָנָשׁא ֵחיַות ָבּ ָרא ְועוֹף‬
-‫ ְבָּכְלּהוֹן; אנתה‬,`‫ ְוַהְשְׁלָט‬,`‫ִבּיָד‬
.‫ ֵראָשׁה ִדּי ַדֲהָבא‬,‫( הוּא‬-‫)ַא ְנְתּ‬
38 and wheresoever the children of men, the beasts of the
field, and the fowls of the heaven dwell, hath He given
them into thy hand, and hath made thee to rule over
them all; thou art the head of gold.
Dan 2:38

“You are the head of gold” Of the same character as the head, for he, Nebuchadnezzar, killed
the Jews, and he, Ahasuerus, sought to kill them. He destroyed the Temple, and he sought to
destroy the foundations for the Temple laid by Zerubbabel, as it is stated:

,‫ִבְּתִחַלּת‬ ,‫ֲאַחְשֵׁורוֹשׁ‬ ,‫ו וְּבַמְלכוּת‬ 6 And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his
‫ ֹיְשֵׁבי ְיהוָּדה‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ָכְּתבוּ ִשְׂטָנה‬--‫ַמְלכוּתוֹ‬ reign, wrote they an accusation against the inhabitants
{‫ }ס‬.‫ִוירוָּשָׁל ִם‬ of Judah and Jerusalem. {S}
Ezra 4:6

“And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote to him an accusation
against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem” and he ordered that the construction of the
Temple cease.

2
And Shmuel said: The name Ahasuerus should be understood in the sense of black [shaḥor], as
the face of the Jewish people was blackened in his days like the bottom of a pot. And Rabbi
Yoḥanan said a different explanation: Everyone who recalled him said: “Woe upon his head”
[aḥ lerosho]. And Rabbi Ḥanina said: The name alludes to the fact that everyone became poor
[rash] in his days, as it is stated:

,‫ָהָא ֶרץ‬-‫שׂם ַהֶמֶּל` אחשרש )ֲאַחְשֵׁוֹרשׁ( ַמס ַﬠל‬

ֶ ‫א ַוָיּ‬ 1 And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute
.‫ְוִאֵיּי ַהָיּם‬ upon the land, and upon the isles of the sea.
Esther 10:1

“And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land”

The Gemara continues:

‫ ַהֹמֵּל] ֵמֹהדּוּ‬,‫ הוּא ֲאַחְשֵׁורוֹשׁ‬:‫ ִבּיֵמי ֲאַחְשֵׁורוֹשׁ‬,‫א ַו ְיִהי‬ 1 Now it came to pass in the days of
.‫ ְמִדיָנה‬,‫ֶשַׁבע ְוֶﬠְשׂ ִרים וֵּמָאה‬--‫כּוּשׁ‬-‫ְוַﬠד‬ Ahasuerus--this is Ahasuerus who reigned,
from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred
and seven and twenty provinces--
Esther 1:1

“This is [hu] Ahasuerus” the term hu, this is, comes to teach that he remained as he was in his
wickedness from beginning to end. Similarly, wherever the words “this is” appear in this manner,
the verse indicates that the individual under discussion remained the same from beginning to end,
for example:

3
 ‫ ַאלּוּף ִﬠיָרם; ֵאֶלּה‬,‫ מג ַאלּוּף ַמְגִדּיֵאל‬43 the chief of Magdiel, the chief of Iram. These are the chiefs
-‫ ְלֹמְשֹׁבָתם ְבֶּאֶרץ ֲאֻחָזָּתם‬,‫ ַאלּוֵּפי ֱאדוֹם‬of Edom, according to their habitations in the land of their
{‫ }פ‬.‫ ֲאִבי ֱאדוֹם‬,‫הוּא ֵﬠָשׂו‬- possession. This is Esau the father of the Edomites. {P}
Gen 36:43

“This is [hu] Esau” he remained in his wickedness from beginning to end.

‫ְוָדָתן‬ ‫ְנמוֵּאל‬ ,‫ֱאִליָאב‬ ‫ט וְּבֵני‬ 9 And the sons of Eliab: Nemuel, and Dathan, and
‫ָדָתן ַוֲאִבי ָרם קרואי‬-‫ הוּא‬:‫ַוֲאִבי ָרם‬ Abiram. These are that Dathan and Abiram, the elect
‫ֹמֶשׁה‬-‫ ֲאֶשׁר ִהצּוּ ַﬠל‬,‫)ְק ִריֵאי( ָהֵﬠָדה‬ of the congregation, who strove against Moses and
-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ ְבַּהֹצָּתם‬,‫ֹק ַרח‬-‫ַאֲהֹרן ַבֲּﬠַדת‬-‫ְוַﬠל‬ against Aaron in the company of Korah, when they
.‫ְיהָוה‬ strove against the LORD;
Num 26:9

“This is [hu] Dathan and Abiram” they remained in their wickedness from beginning to end.

‫ ַויּוֶֹסף ִלְמעוֹל‬,‫כב וְּבֵﬠת ָהֵצר לוֹ‬ 22 And in the time of his distress did he act even more
.‫ ַהֶמֶּל` ָאָחז‬,‫ הוּא‬:‫ַבּיהָוה‬ treacherously against the LORD, this same king Ahaz.
II Chron 28:22

“This is [hu] the king Ahaz” he remained in his wickedness from beginning to end.

The Gemara continues: The word hu is also used to recognize sustained righteousness.
{‫ }ס‬.‫ הוּא ַאְבָרָהם‬,‫כז ַאְבָרם‬ 27 Abram--the same is Abraham. {S}
I Chron 1:27

“Abram, this is [hu] Abraham” this indicates that Abraham didn’t change, as he remained in his
righteousness from beginning to end. Similarly,

4
 ,‫ֲאֶשׁר ָאַמר ְיהָוה‬--‫ וֹּמֶשׁה‬,‫כו הוּא ַאֲהֹרן‬ 26 These are that Aaron and Moses, to whom the LORD
‫ְבֵּני ִיְשָׂרֵאל ֵמֶאֶרץ‬-‫ הוִֹציאוּ ֶאת‬,‫ָלֶהם‬ said: 'Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt
.‫ִצְבֹאָתם‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ִמְצַר ִים‬ according to their hosts.'
Ex 6:26

“This is [hu] Aaron and Moses” they remained in their righteousness from the beginning of
their life to the end of their life. Similarly, with respect to David:

,‫ ָהְלכוּ‬,‫ ַהְגֹּדִלים‬,‫ הוּא ַהָקָּטן; וְּשׁˆָשׁה‬,‫ יד ְוָד ִוד‬14 And David was the youngest; and the three eldest
{‫ }ס‬.‫ַאֲחֵרי ָשׁאוּל‬ followed Saul.-- {S}
I Sam 17:14

“And David, this was [hu] the youngest” indicates that he remained in his humility from
beginning to end. Just as in his youth, when he was still an ordinary individual, he humbled
himself before anyone who was greater than him in Torah, so too, in his kingship, he humbled
himself before anyone who was greater than him in wisdom.

Summary

Hu Achashverosh: Consistently Wishing to Rule the World

The rabbis walk through the Megilla, hoping to understand each statement and its
significance.2 For example, the name of Achashverosh is broken down and analyzed. Out of many
passages and words that are examined, one stands out for me. That is the use of "hu" before the
name of Achashverosh. The rabbis note that we also see this pronoun used before the names of
other 'great' leaders. Avram, hu Avraham, or Avram, this is Avraham, is one example. The rabbis
wonder why Achashverosh would be included in the company of Avraham, Moses, Aaron and
King David. They decide that 'hu' represents someone who was consistent in his character
throughout his life. Wicked or righteous.

The second part of today's daf looks at Achashverosh as one of the kings who 'ruled the world'. The
rabbis name a number of kings and assess whether or not they ruled the world. The world was a
very small place for our rabbis. They name provinces that are close to each other and assume that
the kings ruled between these two provinces, signifying that they ruled the world. They count the
numbers of provinces said to be held by each king, noting that the numbers do not always
match. Our rabbis also look at the number of years that each of these kings reigned.

2
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/07/

5
Again I find it fascinating to imagine a world where the Torah and all related writings were the
basic, 'scientific' blueprints for everything that there was to know. Although I know that many
people still live according to this kind of understanding, most of us do not. What are we missing
as we search beyond Torah for truth? And, of course, what are others missing when they confine
themselves to the Torah in their search for truth?

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3

Rish Lakish introduced his lecture on Megillas Esther with the following interpretation: It is
written [Mishlei 28:15]: As a roaring lion, and a ravenous bear; so is a wicked ruler over a poor
people. A roaring lion is referring to Nebuchadnezzar the wicked; a ravenous bear is referring to
Achashverosh. Proof to this is learned from Rav Yosef who states that the Persians eat and drink
like a bear and are corpulent like a bear and grow hair like a bear and do not repose like a bear. A
wicked ruler is referring to Haman and a poor people is referring to the Jewish people who were
considered poor because of their deficiencies in observing mitzvos.

Rabbi Elozar introduced his lecture on Megillas Esther with the following interpretation: It is
written [Koheles 10:18]: Through laziness the ceiling collapses and with idleness of hands the
house leaks. Because the Jewish people were lazy regarding the study of Torah, the enemy of
Hashem (referring to Hashem Himself) became poor.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak introduced his lecture on Megillas Esther with the following
interpretation: A song of ascents: If it had not been for Hashem who was with us, let Israel declare
it now. If it had not been Hashem who was with us when a man rose up against us. ‘A man’
(referring to Haman) and not a king. Rava introduced his lecture on Megillas Esther with the
following interpretation: When the righteous are exalted the people rejoice, but when the wicked
rule the people sigh. ‘When the righteous are exalted the people rejoice’ — this is illustrated by
Mordechai and Esther, as it is written: and the city of Shushan was cheerful and glad (when
Mordechai was dressed in the royal garb). ‘But when the wicked rule the people sigh’ — this is
illustrated by Haman, as it is written: but the city of Shushan was perplexed (after Haman issued
his decree to destroy the Jewish people).

Rav Masnah introduced his lecture on Megillas Esther with the following interpretation: For what
great nation is there that has God so close to them. Rav Ashi introduced his lecture on Megillas
Esther with the following interpretation: Or has any God done miracles etc. And it came to pass
[va-yehi] in the days of Achashverosh etc. Rav said: [The word va-yehi is equivalent to] ‘vai and
hi’ [woe and mourning]. With reference to this it is written: and there you shall sell yourselves to
your enemies for slaves and for bondwomen, etc. Shmuel introduced his lecture on Megillas Esther
with the following interpretation: It is written [Vayikra 26:44]: I will not cast them away, neither
will I loathe them, to destroy them utterly, to break my covenant with them, for I am Hashem, their
G-d. I will not cast them away is referring to the times of the Greeks; neither will I loathe them is
referring to the times of Nebuchadnezzar; to destroy them utterly is referring to the times of

3
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Megillah_11.pdf

6
Haman; to break my covenant with them is referring to the times of Persians; for I am Hashem,
their G-d is referring to the times of Gog and Magog.

The Gemora cites a braisa that understands the above verse differently. I will not cast them away
is referring to the times of the Chaldeans, for in that time I appointed for them Daniel, Chananiah,
Mishael, and Azariah; neither will I loathe them is referring to the times of the Greeks, as I
appointed for them Shimon Hatzaddik, the Chashmenoi and his sons and Matisyahu the Kohen
Gadol; to destroy them utterly is referring to the times of Haman, as I appointed for them
Mordechai and Esther; to break my covenant with them is referring to the times of Persians, as I
appointed for them Rebbe and other sages of that generation; for I am Hashem, their G-d is
referring to the future, when no nation will be able to control the Jewish people.

The Gemora discusses the interpretation of the name Achashverosh. Rav said: He was the brother
of the head. This is referring to Nebuchadnezzar the wicked, who was called head. Achashverosh
was similar to Nebuchadnezzar in several ways. Nebuchadnezzar killed and Achashverosh
intended to kill. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Beis Hamikdosh and Achashverosh wished to
destroy it. Shmuel interprets the name Achashverosh: In his time the faces of the Jews were black
as the bottom of a pot. Rabbi Yochanan says: Everyone who remembered him would say "woe to
his head." Rabbi Chanina said: His taxes were so heavy that everyone became poor.

It is written: Achashverosh, who is Achashverosh. The Gemora understands this to mean that he
remained wicked from the beginning to end. The Gemora cites other examples like this. It is written
in that form by Esav, Dasan and Aviram and King Achaz. It is written [Divrei Hayamim 2, 1:26]:
Avram, that is Avraham. The Gemora understands this to mean that he remained righteous from
beginning to end. It is written in that form regarding Aharon and Moshe as well. By David, the
Gemora understands it to mean that he remained humble from beginning to end. Just as in his
youth he belittled himself before anyone who was his superior in Torah, so in his kingship, he
belittled himself before anyone who was his superior in wisdom. It is written: Who ruled: Rav
said: this indicates that he (Achashverosh) raised himself to the throne (as he did not inherit the
position). Some interpret this as a praise, and some as a derision. Some interpret it as a praise,
holding that there was no other man equally fit for the throne. Others interpret it as a derision,
holding that he was not fit for the throne, but that he was very wealthy, and by means of excessive
distribution of money, he rose to the throne.

It is written: Achashverosh, who is Achashverosh, who ruled from Hodu to Cush. Rav says these
countries were at opposite ends of the world, thus the verse teaches that Achashverosh ruled the
entire world. Shmuel says they were adjacent to one another and the verse teaches that he ruled
the entire world as easily as he ruled these two countries.

The Gemora cites a similar discussion: It is written: “For he (King Solomon) ruled over the entire
area on this side of the river, from Tifsach to Azzah.” Rav and Shmuel argue about the meaning
of this verse. One says: Tifsach was at one end of the world and Azzah was at the other end. The
other says: They were next to each other. Just as he ruled over Tifsach and Azzah, so he ruled over
the entire world.

7
It is written: Achashverosh, who is Achashverosh, who ruled from Hodu to Cush, one hundred and
twentyseven provinces. Rav Chisda said: Initially, he ruled over seven provinces, later he ruled
over another twenty, and at the end he ruled over all one hundred and twenty-seven provinces. The
Gemora asks: But if you interpret the verse like that, what of the verse: And the years of the life
of Amram were one hundred and thirty seven years? What lesson will you derive from that? The
Gemora answers: There is a difference here because the whole text is superfluous. Let us see: it is
written: from Hodu to Cush. Why then do I require, one hundred and twenty seven provinces? You
must conclude that it is for a special lesson .

The Gemora cites a braisa: There were only three kings that ruled over the entire world; Achav,
Achashverosh and Nebuchadnezzar. The Gemora proceeds to cite the Scriptural verses proving
that. The Gemora asks: Didn’t King Shlomo rule over the entire world? The Gemora answers: He
didn’t complete his reign (he became a common man towards the end of his reign). The Gemora
asks: But according to one opinion, he was reinstated as a king (after becoming a commoner)? The
Gemora answers: He was a ruler over the beings above (demons) and below, so he wasn’t included
in the listing. The Gemora asks again: Didn’t Sancheriv rule over the entire world? The Gemora
answers that he didn’t capture Yerushalayim. The Gemora asks again: Didn’t Daryavesh (Darius)
rule over the entire world? The Gemora answers that there were seven countries that he did not
rule over. The Gemora asks again: Didn’t Koresh (Cyrus) rule over the entire world? The Gemora
answers that the only proof we have for this is Koresh’s own words and they are not reliable.

It is written: In those days, when King Achashverosh sat on his royal throne, which was in Shushan
the capital. This would seem to be referring to the beginning of his reign; yet from the next verse,
it explicitly says the third year. It is written: In the third year of his reign, he made a feast for all
his ministers and servants. Rava explains: In the third year, his mind was put at ease and he
celebrated with a grand party. Achashverosh said: “Balshetzar calculated the seventy years of exile
but made a mistake; I calculated the seventy years (which concluded now) and I did not make any
mistakes.” The Gemora explains: Balshetzar’s mistake was to calculate the starting point of the
seventy years with the time that Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne. Achashverosh sought to
correct that and he calculated from the exile of Yehoyachin. The Gemora states that the correct
calculation would have been to count from the destruction of Yerushalayim.

DEFEAT AMALEK WITH TORAH

Rabbi Elozar introduced his lecture on Megillas Esther with the following interpretation: It is
written [Koheles 10:18]: Through laziness the ceiling collapses and with idleness of hands the
house leaks. Because the Jewish people were lazy regarding the study of Torah, the enemy of
Hashem (referring to Hashem Himself) became poor. The Maharal comments that it is evident
from this Gemora that the only merit that can save Klal Yisroel from the hands of Amalek is the
studying of Torah. Klal Yisroel can become elevated through the study of Torah and only then can
we overcome Amalek. The Riaf explains that this is why the salvation of Purim came after
Mordechai gathered the twenty-two thousand young children and studied Torah with them.

The Gemora later on expounds on the verse that states: (Esther 8:16) layehudim haysa orah
visimcha visasson vikar, the Jews had light and gladness and joy and honor. Light is referring to
Torah; Gladness is referring to the festivals; Joy is referring to bris milah; Glory is referring to

8
tefillin. Torah is mentioned first because that is the method to prevail over Amalek. Lesson from
Hakhel Chazal (Megillah 11A) teach that the fourth and fifth words of the Megillah, "Hu
Achashveirosh--he is Achashveirosh)" teach us a profound lesson. He "is" Achashveirosh--the
very same Achashveirosh--before, during and after the Purim story. Esther, his queen, who was a
nevia (prophetess) and one of the greatest women in history, had no impact upon him. Mordechai,
as the Mishne L'Melech, the number two man in his government, who was a Tzaddik, a navi
(prophet), and one of the great members of the Anshei Kenesses HaGadolah, had no effect on his
life. Indeed, even the miracles of Purim--the amazing turn of events which were years in the
making--were personally overlooked and ignored, although they otherwise made the king's
chronicles and the history books for all time.

As a matter of fact, Achashveirosh had ordered that the work to reconstruct the Beis HaMikdosh
be halted at the beginning of his reign--and continued his stop-work order throughout his 14-year
reign. The Beis HaMikdosh only continued to be rebuilt upon the succession to his throne by his
son, Daryavesh. What an important lesson this is for us! We cannot let the time in which we
currently find ourselves in March by us without it having an important impact upon us. May we
suggest learning to have a special kavanah in the first brocha of Shemone Esrei as we recite the
words "Ozer", "U'Moshia", "U'Magen": Ozer--a Helper, who thwarts an existing immediate danger
from overpowering a person (example: You have already been attacked and the attacker is
defeated); Moshia--a Savior, who cancels danger threatening to overpower a person (example:
Prior to his attacking, the attacker runs away); Mogen--a Shield, who prevents trouble from
reaching you in the first place (example: The attacker never leaves home).

THE SEVENTH YEAR AFTER NEVUCHADNETZAR'S CONQUEST

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

The Gemara explains that the Jews were exiled from Yerushalayim seven years after
Nevuchadnetzar's original conquest of Judea, during the reign of king Yehoyakim.

RASHI (DH Sheniyah) gives a historical account of the seven years from Nevuchadnetzar's
original conquest of Judea to the exile. However, he seems to account for only six years. (See
Chart.)

A TIMELINE OF THE YEARS OF GALUS BAVEL

NUMBER OF YEARS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE REIGN OF
NEVUCHADNETZAR

4
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/megilah/insites/mg-dt-011.htm

9
10
* = Galus

**= Ge'ulah

(1) He attained kingship over the empire by conquering Nineveh.

(2) This occurred at the end of the first year (the beginning of the second year) of Nevuchadnetzar's reign, which was the end of
the fifth year of Yehoyakim's 11-year reign, according to RASHI. (According to the IBN EZRA, RADAK, and the VILNA GAON
in Imrei No'am, Rosh Hashanah 3a, it was the beginning of his fifth year; see Insights.)

(3) That year was counted for both kings, which is what the Gemara calls "Shanim Mekuta'os" (half years which were counted as
full years for each of the two kings).

(4) There were 22 years to Evil-Merodach's reign besides the "Shanah Mekuta'as" -- the first year in which he became king, when
his father ruled for the first part of the year. Including that year, he ruled for 23 years, as the Gemara says.

11
(5) RASHI to Chabakuk 2:5. Some say that Belshatzar was Evil-Merodach's brother (RASHI to Daniel 2:39, 8:27).

(6) Belshatzar erred in two ways. First, he counted from the beginning of Nevuchadnetzar's reign and not from the destruction of
the Beis ha'Mikdash. Second, he accidentally added a "Shanah Mekuta'as" (see footnote 4) to Evil-Merodach's reign. Consequently,
he calculated that the second year of his reign was the 70th year from the time Nevuchadnetzar came to power. He waited until his
second year passed entirely and his third year began in order to celebrate. (This is the way Rashi explains the Gemara (11b, DH
Nasa, Apik, Kama, Chada). This does not contradict what Rashi writes later (12a, DH Tanya Nami Hachi; see MAHARSHA there).
See also Vilna Ga'on in Imrei No'am, Rosh Hashanah 3a, for an alternate explanation of the Sugya.)

(7) This year was mistakenly counted by Achashverosh as two years: he counted it both for Daryavesh and for Koresh. It is the
second of the "Shanim Mekuta'os."

(8) Achashverosh thought that the third year of his reign was the 78th year from the time that Nevuchadnetzar came to power. In
truth, however, it was the 76th year, because of the two years that were "Shanim Mekuta'os." (See footnotes 4 and 7.)

(9) His mother was Esther (Tosfos to Rosh Hashanah 3b; see Insights to Rosh Hashanah 4a).

(10) This Daryavesh was also called "Artachshasta" and "Koresh" (Rosh Hashanah 3b; see, however, Tosfos there DH Shenas and
DH v'Artachshasta).

(11) Although Koresh (the first) permitted the Jews to rebuild the Beis ha'Mikdash, he annulled his authorization due to the pressure
of the "oppressors of Yehudah and Binyamin."

(12) It is evident from this Chart that the exile lasted "70 years" in a number of ways:

-The kingdom of Bavel fell 70 years after it came to power.

-The Jews returned to their land (in the times of Koresh) 70 years after they were exiled from it in
the days of Yehoyachin.

-The Beis ha'Mikdash was rebuilt 70 years after it was destroyed. (VILNA GAON in a footnote to
SEDER OLAM RABAH)

Rashi writes (based on Seder Olam, ch. 25) that Nevuchadnetzar captured Yerushalayim during
the fifth year of Yehoyakim's reign (Yehoyakim reigned for eleven years), and he appointed
Yehoyakim to continue ruling as his vassal king. Yehoyakim ruled in this manner for three years,
and then he rebelled against Nevuchadnetzar for another three years. The rebellion ended when
Nevuchadnetzar recaptured Yerushalayim and dethroned Yehoyakim. Yehoyakim died while
being dragged to Bavel (Yirmeyahu 22:19; see also Rashi to Erchin 12a, DH Kivesh).

The death of Yehoyakim occurred six years after Nevuchadnetzar conquered Judea. Nevertheless,
his death did not mark the beginning of the exile. The exile began at the death of his son,
Yehoyachin, whom Nevuchadnetzar appointed as vassal king after the death of Yehoyakim.

12
However, the verse (Divrei ha'Yamim II 36:9) states that Yehoyachin ruled for only three months
and ten days before he and the rest of Judea were exiled. Accordingly, this accounts for only six
years and three months from the time of Nevuchadnetzar's conquest until the exile. Why does the
Gemara say that the exile occurred seven years after Nevuchadnetzar's conquest?
(See RASHASH to Erchin 12a.)

(a) RASHI implies that Yehoyakim actually ruled for 11 years and 9 months, and not for just 11
years. Since his son reigned for the final 3 months of the twelfth year, that entire year was counted
as the year of his own reign rather than as part of his father's. Accordingly, the seventh year was
comprised of Yehoyakim's reign of 9 months and his son's reign of 3 months.
Alternatively, perhaps Yehoyakim ruled for exactly 11 years, and the following 9
months nobody ruled in Yerushalayim until Nevuchadnetzar appointed Yehoyachin as vassal king.
(This is what the verse means when it says that Nevuchadnetzar returned to exile Yehoyachin "at
the turn of the year" -- that is, one full year from the exile and death of Yehoyakim. See VILNA
GA'ON in IMREI NO'AM, Rosh Hashanah 3a.)

(b) The IBN EZRA (Daniel 1:1) and RADAK (Divrei ha'Yamim II 36:6) imply that Yehoyakim
was taken to Bavel immediately upon his original capture, and he remained imprisoned there for
one year. After one year passed, Nevuchadnetzar returned Yehoyakim to the throne as a vassal
king. This accounts for the missing seventh year. (According to this view, Nevuchadnetzar
defeated Yehoyakim at the beginning of the fifth year of Yehoyakim's reign (i.e. at the end of the
fourth year), and not at the end of the fifth year as Rashi explains.)

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

According to our Gemara, the party that opens Megillat Esther was thrown by Achashverosh to
celebrate the fact that 70 years had passed since the Temple was destroyed and the Jews exiled,
yet the Temple had not been rebuilt.

The tradition of the Sages was that the Babylonian and Persian kings were well aware
of Yirmiyahu‘s prophecy that the first exile would last 70 years (see Yirmiyahu 29:10), and the
party described in Sefer Daniel (see Chapter 5) – where King Belshazzar brought out the Temple
vessels that had been looted by Nebuchadnezzar – was celebrating the fact that the Jews had not
returned to their land and that the prophecy had not been fulfilled.

That party ended in disaster, with Daniel reading the proverbial “handwriting on the wall” that
foretold King Belshazzar’s death. Achashverosh was convinced that Belshazzar had been mistaken
in counting the 70 years from the beginning of the Babylonian empire, but that he could now

5
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_megillah915/

13
celebrate, since it was 70 years since the beginning of the Jewish exile under King
Yehoyakhin (see II Melakhim 24:8-16).

The Ramban explains that Achashverosh did not reject the prophecy entirely. He felt that the
permission given by King Coresh to the Jews to return to Israel was sufficient for the prophecy to
be considered fulfilled, but that the Temple would not be rebuilt. Some suggest that his acceptance
of the prophecy is what allowed him to live, even as Belshazzar was killed.

The Ramban also explains that it was the Temple vessels that had been looted when King
Yehoyachin was taken into exile that were used in King Belshazzar’s party. Those same vessels
were returned to the Jewish community by King Coresh when he allowed them to return to their
land. There were, however, other vessels that had been looted when King Tzidkiyahu was exiled
(see II Melakhim 25:8-17), and those vessels were used by Achashverosh at his party. These
vessels were eventually returned to the Jews, as well, when King Artachshasta encouraged Ezra
ha-Sofer to lead the Jews back to Israel and build the Second Temple (see Ezra 7:19).

The Gemara lists five cases in history where we are taught that the corrupt nature of a person
pervaded their entire life, from the beginning to the very end.6 The Midrash (Esther Rabba 1:2)
notes that correspondingly, there were five righteous people whose goodness and merit lasted their
entire life, from beginning to end. What is the message of this Midrash?

In his commentary to ‫יעקב עין‬, the ‫ רי”ף‬points out that we see that Hashem has calculated and
planned that for every force of evil there was always a proponent of good which countered the
negative influence and maintained the balance of merit in the world. Nimrod led the world in
rebellion against Hashem, but he was balanced by Avraham Avinu, who called out in the name of
Hashem and spread monotheism in the world. Eisav, a force of evil, is introduced in the Torah as
“the one who was born first, the red one” (Bereshis 25:25).

The destruction he unleashed was countered by Dovid Hamelech, who was the youngest of his
brothers, and is referred to as “the red one with handsome eyes” (1 Shmuel 16:12). Dasan and
Aviram were evildoers who conspired and plotted to the detriment of the nation. Their corruption
was offset by the righteous Moshe and Aharon, virtuous proponents of the people. The evil King
Achaz had the houses of study emptied, but this void was filled by King Chizkiyahu, about whom
it is said that he promoted Torah study to such a degree that there was no child who was unfamiliar
with the intricate details of the ritual impurities.

6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Megilla%20011.pdf

14
Finally, Achashverosh interfered with the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash, and corresponding
to this harm arose Ezra, who led the nation in successfully rebuilding the Second Beis HaMikdash.

There used to be a practice that when people would come to Eretz Yisroel and visit the Kosel they
would carve out a small piece of rock to take home. Others would drive in a nail believing that this
would provide spiritual protection.

Poskim (1) wrote very strongly against these practices and noted numerous prohibitions that could
be violated by destroying the Kosel. One person suggested to Rav Moshe Feinstein that based on
a Gemara in Avodah Zarah (2) the prohibition of ‫מעילה‬, deriving personal benefit from sacred
property, should not be violated.

The Gemara there relates that when the Greeks entered the Beis HaMikdash and took stones of the
altar they became defiled and lost their sanctity. Therefore, claimed this writer, the stones of the
Kosel have lost their sanctity as a result of the fact that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed. Rav
Feinstein3 disagreed and asserted that sacred items do not lose their sanctity unless the non-Jew
intends to use them for personal benefit. If, however, there is no intention to use the sacred item
for mundane purposes, the object stands ready to be used once again in the Beis HaMikdash, and
the item does not lose its sanctity. Thus, the Kosel which was not appropriated for personal use
and stands to become part of the reconstruction of the Beis HaMikdash has not lost its sanctity and
is still subject to the prohibition of ‫ מעילה‬.

Rav Feinstein cites our Gemara as proof to his assertion. Our Gemara relates that Balshatzar was
punished for using the sacred utensils of the Beis HaMikdash. The reason Balshatzar did not use
the utensils immediately was his concern for the prophecy that after seventy years the Jews would
return to Eretz Yisroel and they would use these utensils in the new Beis HaMikdash. It was only
when, according to his mistaken calculation, the seventy years passed did he feel comfortable using
the utensils. This indicates, notes Rav Feinstein, that utensils remained sacred even when they are
in the possession of non-Jews if the intention is to use them again in the Beis HaMikdash.

15
On our daf we find that the Jewish people were accused of laziness and slacking from their Torah
study. It was this lapse that diminished, so to speak, Hashem’s ability to save them from Haman’s
genocidal plans. Since most people worked during the day to make a living, the indictment of
laziness really meant that they were not taking advantage of the time available to them when they
were “off hours.” If one learns with diligence, even a little a day goes a long way.

In Kelm, the schedule included a wake-up call in the middle of the night for a five or ten minute
seder. During that time, the bochurim were permitted to learn whatever they wanted with a
chavrusah. After some time, all of the bochurim noticed how much they were advancing because
of those extra five or ten minutes of learning. The practice always fulfilled its purpose: that the
bochurim would come to see the vast potential hiding within the short span of five minutes.

The Imrei Menachem of Alexander, zt”l, was once with a group of people and one of them said,
“I became a talmid chacham from just ten minutes a day! I was very busy with my business, but
before breakfast every day I would learn Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim for a quick ten minutes.
After doing this for some time, I found that I had acquired a broad base of knowledge in this area
of halachah.”

The Rebbe commented, “When I was younger, there were times when I had errands to run and
tasks to deal with which took up a great deal of my time. However, I was always careful that I
would sit and learn right up until the moment I left and from the moment I returned. While I was
on the way, I would also be thinking in learning. Every free moment is potentially of immeasurable
worth! I knew people who were such great masmidim that even on their wedding day they learned
right up until the chuppah!”

Name that Verse

Rabbi Elliot Goldberg

“I can name that tune in three notes.”

“I can name that tune in two notes.”

“You can? Well then, name that tune!”

The iconic (and recently rebooted) game show Name that Tune pits music lovers one against the
other in a battle to identify popular songs in as few notes as possible. While reading today’s daf, I

16
imagine a talmudic game show that challenges rabbis to show off their abilities to connect
disparate biblical texts by using biblical verses to introduce homilies about Megillat Esther.

Yesterday we were introduced to a form of rabbinic interpretation known as a petikhta, which

seeks to find novel connections between biblical verses. On today’s daf, and for several more to
follow, we find the rabbis applying this method to the Book of Esther:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak began his petikhta with this verse: “A song of ascents of David. If not
for the Lord who was with us, let Israel now say; if not for the Lord who was with us, when
a man rose up against us” (Psalms 124:1–2). The verse speaks of “a man” who rose up against
us and not a king.

In this example, Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak quotes from a psalm that praises God for protecting the
Jewish people from their enemies. Seizing on the psalmist’s use of the word “man,” he teases out
a reference to the story of Purim, where the threat that the Jewish people face is from Haman, a
regular person, as opposed to many other biblical stories where a king embodies the threat.

In another example on today’s daf, Rava draws from Proverbs 29:2, in which he finds a reference
not only to Haman, but also Mordechai and Esther.

Rava began his petikhta with this verse: “When the righteous are on the increase, the people
rejoice; but when the wicked man rules, the people groan” (Proverbs 29:2).

“When the righteous are on the increase, the people rejoice ”; this is Mordechai and Esther,
as it is written: “And the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad” (Esther 8:15).

“But when the wicked man rules, the people groan”; this is Haman, as it is written: “But the
city of Shushan was dumbfounded” (Esther 3:15).

Rava’s first move here is to make a connection between the verse from Proverbs and Esther 8:15
because both use a form of the word happiness (simchah). Just as the righteous cause the people
to rejoice, so too do Mordechai and Esther, righteous in the eyes of the rabbis, bring joy to the
people as they save the Jewish people from Haman.

Then he equates the dumbfoundedness of the people in response to the royal edict that damns the
Jews to the groan of a people ruled by a wicked person. Unlike some petikhtot, which establish a
connection linguistically, dumbfounded (navochah) and groan (yei’anach) are not from the same
root. Rather, Rava calls upon the reader to equate the meaning of the words.

After studying these and other petikhtot, it’s not hard to imagine the rabbis preparing for Purim by
engaging in a little friendly competition:

“I can launch a drash on Purim with this verse.”

“Yes, but I can launch a drash with this other verse.”

17
“You can? Let’s hear your drash!”

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

Throughout the Tanach we find people or groups of people who presume that they can know, with
both precision and certainty, when certain future events which have been prophecied will occur,
and just as we find with Achashverosh in today’s daf (Megillah 11b), they each make the claim:
‫‘ – אנא חשיבנא ולא טעינא‬I shall make a calculation [about when a particular prophecy will occur]
and I will not err’.

Yet in almost every instance, as recorded both in today’s daf and elsewhere in the Midrash and
Gemara they err, and in almost every case it becomes evidently clear that the predicted timeline of
any future event or prophecy can only be understood retroactively.

Clearly, a very simple lesson that we can draw from here is that our insistence that we can know,
in real time, if, how and when prophecies will be realised is foolish.

In terms of prophecies about what may happen in the future, it is important to remember the words
of Rabbi Sacks that, ‘a prophet is not an oracle; a prophecy is not a prediction. Precisely
because Judaism believes in free will, the human future can never be unfailingly predicted.
People are capable of change. God forgives. As we say in our prayers on the High Holy Days:
“Prayer, penitence, and charity avert the evil decree.” There is no decree that cannot be
revoked. A prophet does not foretell. He warns. A prophet does not speak to predict future
catastrophe but rather to avert it. If a prediction comes true it has succeeded. If a prophecy
comes truth it has failed’8

But even in terms of prophecies that reference specific spans of time - such as the 40 days when
Moshe was on Mount Sinai (which, as our Sages note, the people miscalculated), or the 70 years
of the Babylonian exile (which, as discussed in today’s daf, was also miscalculated by
Achashverosh and others) – we see from our daf and numerous other biblical and rabbinic sources
that we can only know when the start of the count of a specific period of time began once it has
ended.

So why do we keep on repeating the same mistake of claiming ‫‘ – אנא חשיבנא ולא טעינא‬I shall make
a calculation and I will not err’? I believe that it is because we think that God operates according
to the tick of our clock, whereas what we don’t realise is that even when God communicates via
prophecy that certain events will occur after a specific span of time, they occur based on the tick
of God’s clock – and just as God says ‫‘ – וראית את אחרי ופני לא יראו‬you will see My back, but My
face may not be seen’ (Shemot 33:23), so too, the predicted timeline of any future event or
prophecy can never be known with certainty ahead of time, but only afterwards, from the ‘back’.

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com
8
Covenant and Conversation: Magid Publications 2009 Deuteronomy pp. 160-161

18
 The wrath of Ahasuerus (anonymous), Rijksmuseum.

AHASUERUS.

Gerson B. Levi, Kaufmann Kohler, George A. Barton write:9

—Biblical Data:

1.Persian king, identical with Xerxes (486-465 B.C.).

The Book of Esther deals only with one period of his reign. It tells us that he ruled over one hundred
and twenty-seven provinces—"from India, even unto Ethiopia" (Esth. i. 1). In the third year of his
reign he made a feast to show his riches and splendor; "the power of Persia and Media, the nobles
and princes of the provinces, being before him" (ibid. i. 3). After this feast, which lasted one
hundred and eighty days, he made another of seven days, to which "all the people . . . great and
small" were invited. At the same time Vashti the queen gave a banquet to the women (i. 9). On the
seventh day (i. 10) Ahasuerus summoned the queen to appear before him, and the banqueters, too,
so that all might see her beauty. This Vashti naturally refused to do (i. 12); but the king, angered
at her disobedience, took the advice of his counselors and set the queen aside. At the same time he

9
https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/967-ahasuerus

19
sent proclamations throughout the land, declaring the husband the ruler in every household (i. 22).
Between the events of the first chapter and those of the second some years may be supposed to
intervene, during which Ahasuerus is busy with his attempt at enslaving Greece. He fails, and
returns to Persia. On his return a second consort is found for him, and in the tenth month of the
seventh year of his reign (ii. 16) Esther becomes queen. The Biblical account then introduces what
must have been a very common episode in the life of Persian monarchs.
Two eunuchs, Bigthan and Teresh (Persian, Bagatana and Tiris; Jules Oppert, "Commentaire
Historique et Philologique du Livre d'Esther," p. 22), form a conspiracy against Ahasuerus, which
might have succeeded, had not Mordecai (through a Jewish slave of one of the conspirators,
suggests Josephus, "Ant." xi. 6, § 4; but through Mordecai's knowledge of seventy languages,
suggests the Targum) discovered it to Esther, who in turn told Ahasuerus. The conspirators are
hanged, and the account of the conspiracy and its discovery entered in the chronicles. Later on the
king rewards Mordecai for his fidelity (Esth. vi. 2-12). Haman now comes to the front as the chief
adviser of Ahasuerus (iii. 1). Mordecai will not do reverence to Haman, who thereupon, scorning
to lay hands on Mordecai alone, plots to destroy all the Jews throughout the kingdom. The king
gives his consent (iii. 11), but withdraws it on the intercession of Esther, puts Haman to death, and
raises Mordecai to the position that Haman held. Fresh proclamations are sent out ordering the
Jews to defend themselves and to take vengeance on their enemies (viii. 13). No further
information about Ahasuerus is given in the Bible. Only once more is he mentioned—in Ezra, iv.
2. Father of Darius the Mede (Dan. ix. 1).

—In Rabbinical Literature:

Ahasuerus, the Persian king of the Book of Esther, being identified by the rabbis with the one
mentioned in Dan. ix. 1 as father of Darius, king of Media, and with the one mentioned in Ezra,
iv. 6, is counted as one of the three kings of Biblical history who ruled over the entire globe, the
other two being Ahab and Nebuchadnezzar (Meg. 11a; Targ. Sheni on Esth. i. 2 has four, counting
also Solomon among them; see Meg. 11b).
He was wicked from the beginning to the end of his reign. Upon the slanderous report of the
Samaritans he stopped the work, begun under Cyrus, of the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra, iv. 6;
Esther R. intro.). Whether he was a wise ruler or a foolish one is a matter of dispute between Rab
and Samuel (Meg. 12a). According to R. Gamaliel II., he was simply whimsical and vacillating
(ib. 12b); according to another tradition which was handed down by Abba Gorion, he was so
unstable that he sacrificed his wife to his friend, and his friend to his wife (Mid. Abba Gorion i.
1), probably meaning the emperor Domitian, of whom this statement was true (compare Bacher,
"Ag. Tan." i. 96 et seq.). In his ambition Ahasuerus wanted to sit on King Solomon's wonderful
throne, described in the Midrash and the Targum to Esther, but he could not. His "showing the
riches of his glorious kingdom" to his princes (Esth. i. 4) was especially sinful, as he had all the
sacred vessels from the sanctuary taken out of his royal treasure-house to the banquet in order to
boast of these possessions, thus committing an offense against God and the Jews. He heaped up
great treasures and in his miserliness hid them.

20
Cyrus, his successor, found them, and offered them to the Jews in order that they might rebuild the
Temple therewith. These are "the treasures of darkness" promised to Cyrus in Isa. xlv. 3 (Esther
R. i. 4). The restlessness of Ahasuerus on that night which decided the fate of the Jews was caused
by the archangel Michael (Gabriel), who knocked him to the ground 366 times, and then brought
before him a company of butchers, bakers, and butlers, to whom the king in his anger said: "You
have poisoned me!" They replied: "See whether Esther and Haman, who ate and drank with you,
are poisoned." When Ahasuerus found that they were well he sent for the book of the chronicles,
and there learned of Mordecai's unrewarded act (Midr. Abba Gorion).
PirḲe deRabbi Eliezer, xi., in accordance with Targ. Sheni on Esther, at the beginning, counts ten
kings as rulers over the entire globe: God, Nimrod, Joseph, Solomon, Ahab, Ahasuerus,
Nebuchadnezzar, and Alexander the Great; then, as the ninth, the Messiah; and last, God Himself
again. It is also said there that Ahasuerus was the wealthiest of all the kings of Persia and Media;
that he is mentioned in Daniel (xi. 2), where it is said: "The fourth shall be far richer than they all";
and also that he set up couches of gold and silver in the thoroughfare of his capital to show all the
world his riches; all the dishes and vessels he used were of gold, while the pavement of his palace
was entirely of precious stones and pearls.

—Critical View:

Despite the fact that both Josephus ("Ant." xi. 6) and the Septuagint refer to Ahasuerus as
Artaxerxes, modern scholars, such as Keil ("Commentary to Esther"), Bertheau, and Ryssel
("Commentary to Esther"), Wildeboer ("Kurzer Hand-Kommentar," 1898), Sayce ("Higher
Criticism and the Monuments," p. 469), and Schrader ("K. A. T." p. 375), are agreed that Xerxes
and none other is meant by Ahasuerus, and this for various reasons:
(1) Ahasuerus is the attempt of the Hebrew to represent the Persian Khshayarsha, the aleph being
prosthetic just as it is in Aḥashdarpenim (Esth. iii. 12), where the Persian is Kschatrapawan
(Wildeboer, in loco). The Greek represents it by Xerxes.
(2) The description that Herodotus gives of the character of Xerxes corresponds to the Biblical
and, later, the midrashic picture—vain, foolish, fickle, and hot-tempered.
(3) The king must be a Persian; for the whole atmosphere is Persian. The court is at Shushan, and
the officers are Persian.
(4) Between the third and seventh years of his reign Ahasuerus is lost to view in the Biblical
account; but that was just the time when Xerxes was engaged in the invasion of Greece.
There can therefore be no doubt that the monarch whose name passed among the Hebrews as
Ahasuerus was the one known as Khshayārshā in the Persian inscriptions and among the Greeks
as Xerxes. The Babylonian tablets spell his name Khisiarshu, Akhshiyarshu, etc. An Aramaic
inscription ("C. I. S." ii. 1, 122) spells it .
Whether there are any references to Ahasuerus in the Old Testament which are really historical is
a serious question. The Ahasuerus of Dan. ix. 1, the father of Darius "of the seed of the Medes," is
as unknown to history as is his son. Probably both are the confused ideas about Persian kings of a
badly informed writer (see "Journal of Bibl. Lit." xvii. 71). In like manner the reference to

21
Ahasuerus in Ezra, iv. 6 occurs where Cambyses or Darius is to be expected, if the statement is
historical, and is no doubt the result of the ignorance of a late writer.

Esther before Ahasuerus (1547-48), Tintoretto, Royal Collection.

Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon writes:10

When the nation of Israel departed from Egypt and the sea split for them, drowning the Egyptians,

all the nations of the world were afraid to go to war with Israel. They said, "How shall we stand

up to them? Pharaoh, who stood against them, was drowned by God in the sea. How then shall

10
https://etzion.org.il/en/holidays/purim/gods-war-amalek-through-yosef-yehoshua-and-mordekhai

22
we succeed?" (Mekhilta de-Rashbi on Shemot 17). Amalek, however, was not afraid: "And he

did not fear God" (Devarim 25:18, according to Rashi). This seems strange, from where did

Amalek derive such courage? How was it that he was not afraid of Israel?

An additional question arises from Moshe's reaction. When he hears that Amalek is going to wage

war against Israel, rather than girding his loins and preparing for war, he sends Yehoshua: "And

Moshe said to Yehoshua... go out and fight against Amalek" (Shemot 17:9). Why did he not go

out himself to fight?

The midrash provides the following explanation: "It is impossible that Moshe was standing by

passively, and commanding Yehoshua to wage war against Amalek. Rather, it is tradition that the

children of Eisav are only defeated by the children of Rachel" (Mekhilta de-Rashbi, 71). This

poses its own difficulty: Why is it specifically the children of Rachel who are victorious over

Amalek?

There is a third difficulty in understanding the war with Amalek. The victory over Amalek is of

vital significance. The eyes of all the other nations are turned towards Amalek; if they are

victorious, it will be a sign to all the other nations that Israel is indeed a realistic target for

war. Why is the war against Amalek a regular, physical war rather than a miraculous one? Why

does God not rain down stones from the heavens as occurs under the leadership of Yehoshua

decades later, in the war against the five Emori kings (Yehoshua 10:11)?

The answer to all of these questions lies in the nature and character of Amalek. Amalek does not

believe in God's providence over what happens in the world. As Chazal point out, Amalek stands

out in his ideology of "coincidence" ("mikreh"); "asher karekha ba-derekh" (Esther Rabba, parsha

8). Amalek sees miracles happening around the nation of Israel, but he explains all of them as

23
natural phenomena. He sees the splitting of the sea, but insists that it is a coincidental instance of

tides rising and falling. He believes that their victory over Egypt was coincidental, and cannot see

any reason why that "good luck" should repeat itself. Hence he is not afraid, and goes out to war

against Israel.

The children of Rachel represent precisely the opposite ideology: there is no "coincidence" in the

world. Her eldest son, Yosef, lives his life with a constant sense of standing before God, feeling

God's presence and His providence over the whole world. There is no other figure to be found

anywhere in Tanakh who mentions God as many times as Yosef does (19 times). The following

examples of Yosef's speech demonstrate this ideology:

11

Yosef not only attempts, but succeeds in bringing about awareness of God's presence amongst the

nations. Pharaoh declares, "Is there another man like this, one in whom the spirit of God

rests?" (Bereishit 41:38).

Furthermore, the more a person believes in God's providence, the more that providence acts on

him. Indeed, Yosef is rewarded for his unwavering faith in God:

11
For further examples refer to Bereishit 40:8/41:26,32,51,52/45:4,9/48:9/50:20,25

24
 12

Clearly, then, Yosef (and therefore his descendant, Yehoshua) is the most suitable candidate to

wage war against Amalek. Amalek aims to wipe out God's name, he wishes to negate God's rule

of the world. Yosef, more than anyone else, represents God's rulership, and therefore it is he who

is worthy of fighting against Amalek. He fights not only in defense of Am Yisrael, but also as a

"war on behalf of God." This idea can be learned from the midrash (Shemot Rabba, perek 26):

The descendants of Binyamin, Rachel's second son, are involved in the fight as well. Sha'ul and

Mordekhai both wage war against Amalek. Let's examine Mordekhai's fight against Amalek.

Mordekhai, too, is aware that he is fighting against someone who does not believe in God's

existence and providence. The midrash teaches,

(Esther Rabba, parsha 8).

12
See also 39:3,21,23

25
According to the midrash, Mordekhai calls Haman "karahu", a name which denotes

coincidence. Even on the literal level of the story itself, we see how Haman plans each step based

on luck and lots. Even the planned date of the murder of the Jews is chosen by means of a lot -

"they cast the lot before Haman" (Esther 3:7). Mordekhai stands ready to oppose this

ideology. He knows that there is no such thing as chance, the world has a ruler and a governor -

the capital has owners!

The Rambam (Hilkhot Ta'anit 1:3) warns against seeing events as being coincidental:

The question still remains as to why the war with Amalek is a natural, non-miraculous one. In

general, when open miracles take place, even simple people believe that the hand of God was

somehow involved. The Egyptian magicians themselves admitted, "it is the finger of

God" (Shemot 8:15). Amalek, on the other hand, is not impressed by even the most obvious

miracles, and sees them as occurring in the natural course of events. In doing so Amalek

diminishes God's name, "As it were, so long as descendants of Amalek exist in the world, neither

God's name nor His throne are complete" (Pesikta Rabbati, 12). The war against Amalek repairs

this diminishing of God's name: "'To you, O God, is the Kingship' - this refers to the war against

26
Amalek" (Berakhot 58b). "In other words, by waging war for Hashem against Amalek, His throne

is exalted." (Rashi, ibid.)

The war against Amalek takes place specifically in a natural way, in order that all should know

that even those phenomena which appear altogether natural are brought about by God's hand. The

first natural victory brings proof, so that there can be no doubt: "And it was that when Moshe

raised his hand Israel prevailed, and when he lowered his hand Amalek prevailed." (Shemot

17:11). Chazal expand on this: "'And it was that when Moshe raised his hand Israel prevailed' -

surely it cannot be the case that Moshe's hands brought about victory or destruction in the

war! Rather, this comes to teach us that so long as the eyes of Israel are directed upwards and they

submit themselves to their Father in heaven, they will be successful. If not, they will fall" (Rosh

Hashana 29b).

Megillat Esther, too, recounts an altogether natural story. The name of God is not mentioned even

once in the megilla. Mordekhai commands that the days of Purim be commemorated, and it is

through this that the nation comes to the realization that even those things that appear natural are

in fact directed by God. Indeed, in the megilla itself the victory over Amalek leads to the

reinstatement of God's name:

27
There is yet another connection between the fighters of Amalek; Yehoshua (Yosef) and

Mordekhai. Those cities that were surrounded by a wall in the days of Yehoshua read Megillat

Esther on the 15th of Adar, according to the opinion of the Tanna quoted in the first mishna of

massekhet Megilla. R. Yehoshua bar Karcha, on the other hand (Ta'anit 2b), holds that the

determining date is not "the days of Yehoshua ben-Nun," but rather "the days of

Achashverosh." At first glance the Tanna of the mishna seems difficult to understand: What is the

connection between Yehoshua and Megillat Esther?

Indeed, this question was posed by the Yerushalmi and several Rishonim, and a number of possible

explanations were provided. According to what we have explained above, the problem is easily

solved. Yehoshua and Mordekhai both fought against Amalek. In both cases God's providence

was masked by seemingly natural occurrences.

However, in the case of Yehoshua there was also visible proof:

28
 (Shemot 17:11; as explained above).

Yehoshua is the one who taught a lesson to all generations: that even a seemingly "natural" victory

is dependent on God's will and His involvement. The "natural" victory of Mordekhai and Esther

takes on a new perspective in light of Yehoshua's war. The latter comes to interpret the former:

just as Yehoshua's war was an example of God's wonders, so was the story of the

megilla. Mordekhai hints at this himself when he makes the reading of the megilla dependent on

"the days of Yehoshua ben-Nun".

This idea may also be contained in the words of the Ritva (Megilla 2a):

Amalek excels in his ideology of chance and coincidence, and therefore he has no fear of waging

war against Am Yisrael since he sees their victories as pure luck. Yosef is the antithesis of

Amalek; he feels the presence of God everywhere. His descendants and those of his brother

(Binyamin), too, continue this line and fight against Amalek (Yehoshua and Mordekhai). Their

wars are natural wars, demonstrating that not only were all the miracles of Egypt from God, but

even those events and phenomena which appear altogether natural are brought about by God.

Today, too, there are those who believe in "luck", people who see all of God's miracles as luck and

chance. Such people refer to our victory in the Six-Day War and the astonishing lack of casualties

during the Gulf War as "luck." We call this "siyata di-shemaya" (assistance from heaven).

29
"These by the chariot and those by horses; while we call on the name of God." (Tehillim 20:9).13

Ahasuerus and Haman at Esther's Feast, by Rembrandt

Chosen People?

“Segullah”: Privilege or Purpose?

Chaim Eisen writes:14

13
Translated by Kaeren Fish

14
https://jewishaction.com/letters/chaim-eisen/

30
A palpable awkwardness almost inevitably obfuscates any discussion of our perceived identity as
the “Am Segullah”1—usually rendered as God’s exclusive, special treasure among the nations. At
best, regarding ourselves as thereby “chosen” smacks of a chauvinistic sense of self-endowment;
at worst, it evokes comparisons to Nietzsche’s “Ubermenschen” or Dostoyevsky’s Raskolnikov.
If construed as conferring inborn privileges, such a doctrine’s corollaries can include pervasive
xenophobia and outright bigotry.

Yet, “segullah” elsewhere in the Bible denotes accumulated royal property,2 provided with
designated purpose, not prerogatives. Explains Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, “Segullah … does
not mean that God does not belong to any other people, but that this people must not belong to any
other god, must not acknowledge any other being as a god.”3 Thus, we read the Divine promise,
“to set you highest, above all the nations that He made, for praise and for renown and for glory,”4
as not a gift but a summons. Rabbi Ovadyah Seforno comments, “‘And to set you highest’—to
understand and to instruct [all the nations].… ‘For praise and for renown and for glory’—of God,
may He be Blessed.” Similarly, Rabbi Hirsch observes that the “praise,” “renown” and “glory” are
what we respectively offer, so to speak, to God: by serving historically as a demonstration of
Divine providence and thereby praising God’s dominion in human destiny, by bearing the Torah
that renders God’s will renowned as the source of our spiritual mission and vitality, and by
faithfully fulfilling that Torah and thus glorifying God and spreading His light throughout the
world. In this vein, he stresses, Yisrael’s “spiritual and moral impact on human consciousness …
is the ultimate purpose of [its] historic mission in the world.”5

Recognition of this responsibility permeates Scripture. “I, God, have called you in righteousness
and shall hold your hand; and I shall safeguard you and give you for a covenant of the people, for
a light of the nations.… I have given you as a light of the nations, that My salvation may be to the
end of the earth.… And nations will go by your light, and kings by the gleam of your shining.”6

Rabbi David Kimchi explains, “The nations will go by the light of Yisrael—they and their kings
and officers.” Furthermore, notes Rabbi David Altschuler, this promise obligates us: “They will
learn from you the ways of God, and you will illuminate their eyes.”7

In this light, we can appreciate the implications of Rabbi Yehudah Halevi’s famous simile,
“Yisrael among the nations is like the heart among the organs [of the body].”8 While a body bereft
of a heart is clearly dead, a heart dissociated from a body is equally pointless. The body can only
function properly and attain its goals when, as an organic whole, it is complete—comprising both
a heart and a full complement of organs. Perhaps alluding to this critical interplay, the Bible
explicitly likens Yisrael among the nations to the kohanim (priests) within Yisrael. God stipulated
at Sinai, “And you shall be to me a kingdom of kohanim and a holy nation,”9 a role the prophet
Yeshayahu envisions actualized in the future.10 We should consider the implications of both these
metaphors in elucidating Yisrael’s unique role in the world.

The Kohanim and Yisrael, the Heart and the Body

The analogy of the priesthood is especially illuminating. The primary duty of the kohanim was
pedagogical—“to instruct the children of Yisrael concerning all the laws that God told them
through Moshe.”11 Thus, the prophets likewise portray their mandate.12 In practice, apart from
relatively brief respites for Temple service, the kohanim (and, by extension, the leviim and others
drawn to the task)13 were charged with teaching and guiding the nation.

31
The necessity of a sanctified caste, consecrated to spirituality and education, is clear. Yisrael is
bidden to function as a normal, autonomous nation, engaging in all the normative pursuits of
nationhood; yet, simultaneously, it is vested with the responsibility to advance the world toward
its Divine goals. A constant danger perforce inheres in this dialectic. We each seek our individual
worldly niches—mindful of the Talmud’s conclusion that, for “each and every one, the Holy One
Blessed be He beautified one’s trade to him”14—to ensure the filling of every requisite role in the
nation and world. Understanding that this is a crucial aspect of our devotion to Godliness and
perfection of His world, we rightly strive indefatigably for professional excellence. But what
guarantees that, while doing so, we do not lose sight of the spiritual purpose, which we intend all
our efforts ultimately to achieve? What prevents righteous dedication to vocational success from
degenerating into all-consuming obsession—reducing our lofty intent to actualize in our careers
the Mishnah’s mandate that “all your deeds should be for the sake of Heaven”15 to mere lip
service? The Torah’s solution includes designating certain individuals from birth for total
immersion in spirituality and holiness. Their training precludes any preoccupation with
worldliness and equips them to serve as the essential heart of the nation. Rambam explains, “[The
tribe of] Levi did not merit the inheritance of [land in] Eretz Yisrael and its spoils with its brethren,
because it was separated to serve God and to minister to Him and to teach His upright ways and
righteous laws to the multitudes” (see fn. 13).

Like the heart, pumping life-giving blood throughout the body’s extremities, the kohanim and their
associates mediate the connection that spiritually vivifies the nation’s periphery. As such,
“kohanim are diligent”;16 one conscious of his role as heart is never quiescent.
Similarly, kohanim are notoriously irascible; being so intimately bonded to the essence precludes
indifference.17 Thanks to them, terrestrial means, however important, do not obscure transcendent
ends.

Finally, as the heart unites all the organs of the body it supports, through the blood coursing
equivalently through them all, so the kohanim ensure the integrity of the nation as an organic
whole, unified by the Torah’s mission. Thus, Hillel bids us to embrace peace specifically by
invoking the paradigmatic kohen, who personified, as the first high priest, the very heart of
the kohanim: “Be from among the disciples of Aharon—loving peace and pursuing peace, loving
humanity and bringing them close to the Torah.”18 Strife results from the conviction that attaining
one’s objectives entails thwarting those of others. True peace among us—as opposed to mere
appeasement—is predicated upon appreciating that we all share the same Torah-ordained goals,
exemplified by the kohanim, and our disparate endeavors are simply different means to advance
them. With this realization, strife is as absurd as a conflict between two hands, which, though
performing different functions, are obviously parts of the same body. This is the lesson of
the kohanim, the heart of the nation.

Yisrael as the Kohanim—and the Heart—of the World

These conclusions empower us to elucidate God’s promise, “Now, if you truly obey My voice and
keep My covenant, you shall be My segullah from among all peoples, for all the world is Mine.”19
Indeed, these words immediately precede the aforementioned metaphor, “And you shall be to me
a kingdom of kohanim and a holy nation” (see fn. 9). Rabbi Ovadyah Seforno comments, “‘You
shall be My segullah from among all peoples’—Even though all humankind is more precious to
Me than all the rest of terrestrial creatures … you will be ‘My segullah’ from among all of them.

32
‘For all the world is Mine’—and the difference between you [and other peoples] is one of degree;
for, indeed, ‘all the world is Mine,’ and the pious of the nations of the world are precious to Me
without doubt.” Moreover, Rabbi Hirsch explains “for all the world is Mine” as part of the mission:
“The relationship that you are to establish now between you and Me … initiates the renewal of the
normal relationship that should exist between ‘all the world’ and Me. After all, by their destiny,
all people and all peoples are Mine, and I am dedicating them to be Mine.” Yisrael’s designation
as God’s “firstborn,” he observes, means that Yisrael is God’s first, but not only, child.20 “As the
first among the nations, [Yisrael] must lead all the other peoples on the road back to God and to
His Law,”21 by serving, on behalf of all of humanity, “as a manifest example, a warning, a model,
an education.”22 In summation, “Yisrael has no other task than to acknowledge as its God the One
Who calls and educates all human beings to His service, and to make Him known as such, through
its destiny and way of life” (see fn. 3).

This is our essential duty as “a kingdom of kohanim.” Rabbi Ovadyah Seforno elaborates, “You
shall be ‘a kingdom of kohanim,’ to understand and to instruct all humankind, ‘all to call in God’s
Name [and] to serve Him with one accord.’23 Thus will the matter of Yisrael be in the future to
come; like [Yeshayahu’s] statement, ‘And you shall be called “kohanei Hashem (see fn. 10).’” In
this vein, Rabbi Hirsch adds that our role as kohanim is “for the sake of that selfsame destiny of
‘all the world.’…Each and every one of you will be a kohen…and spread knowledge of God and
submission to God, through the utterances of his mouth and the example of his deeds.” And,
communally, our responsibility as “a holy nation” is “for the sake of establishing the kingdom of
Heaven and its glorification on earth. This nation shall seek greatness not in its might but in the
absolute dominion of the Divine moral law. Surely, this is the implication of ‘holiness.’”

In this light, we can better appreciate the Divine mandate, “I shall safeguard you and give you for
a covenant of the people, for a light of the nations.”24 Rabbi David Kimchi notes, “‘For a covenant
of the people’ [means] ‘for the sustenance of each and every nation’; for on account of you the
entire world is sustained …on two levels. One is that there will be peace on account of them among
all the nations; as [Zecharyah] said of the Mashiach, ‘And he will speak peace unto the nations’;25
and [Yeshayahu] said, ‘And [He will] rebuke many peoples; and they will beat their swords into
plowshares,’26 et cetera. And the second is that because of Yisrael the nations will observe [the]
seven [Noachide] laws and go on the way of goodness; as in, ‘He will instruct us of His ways, and
we will go in His paths,’27 et cetera.” “Like the heart among the organs,” on both levels, Yisrael
is spiritually to vivify and sustain the entire world.

Furthermore, apropos of the role of the kohanim mediating peace within Yisrael, we should
consider the prerequisite of world peace envisioned by the prophets: “And many peoples will go
and say, ‘Come and let us ascend to the mountain of God, to the house of the God of Yaakov, and
He will instruct us of His ways, and we will go in His paths’; for from Tzion shall go forth Torah
and the word of God from Yerushalayim.”27 Rabbi Hirsch comments on this verse that “the
teachings of right and social justice, of righteousness and love, shall one day become part of the
life of all mankind, without exception.”28 In the wake of that universal recognition, “And He will
judge among the nations and rebuke many peoples; and they will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks, nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they
learn war anymore.” True peace among nations is possible only once they all accept their diverse
characters and ostensibly divergent interests and activities as complementary means for actualizing
the same sacred objectives. As in the microcosm of the nation of Yisrael, such a realization renders

33
strife absurd. The “Isaiah Wall” adjacent to the UN headquarters testifies to international
submission to this utopian vision of the prophets, but the world has yet to appreciate that its
fulfillment depends on the preceding verse.

The Sarim of the Nations

More fundamentally, though, to relate properly to the diverse characters and divergent interests of
the nations of the world, we must invoke an additional, elusive concept. As articulated explicitly
in Daniel’s visions29 and reiterated continually throughout Talmudic and Midrashic literature,
each archetypal nation has a “sar”—a so-called Divine officer—appointed over it, so to speak, in
Heaven.30 Such a foundational principle clearly demands explication, especially given its
superficial resemblance to such idolatrous vulgarities as national and territorial deities and pagan
pantheons. Who—or what—are these sarim?

Perhaps the most direct, albeit cryptic, definition of a sar is an incorporeal intellect that is a
nation’s soul. To understand this equation, consider that, on a microcosmic scale, we regard every
human being as endowed with an individual soul—one’s spiritual essence. Simultaneously, the
Talmud notes that, macrocosmically, in manifold ways, God’s relationship to the world—as the
world’s spiritual essence, in Whom everything is subsumed31—is analogous to the relationship of
a soul to a body.32 Between these scales, a nation’s sar is its national spiritual essence. Each
individual retains free will and consequent autonomy, as well as the personal uniqueness that
equips everyone to find one’s niche in one’s nation and the world, through which ideally to
advance the goal “to perfect the world through the reign of the Almighty.”33 Yet, nations are also
significant components in this scheme, each provided with distinct national attributes enabling it
to contribute singularly to this end. A person harnesses a vast array of organs, which one’s body
comprises, in attaining one’s objectives. So, too, the multifarious missions of the members of a
nation are all subsumed in its overarching aims,34 which ideally represent its particular
contribution to the world’s final completeness. In this sense, a nation’s sar is its collective,
composite soul, encompassing all the souls of its members.

Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler offers a parallel formulation: “Within this ultimate purpose [of
Creation], each and every nation serves in [advancing] a specific goal, corresponding to its
essential character. Thus, this unique character of every nation is its spiritual content, and this is
the matter that our Sages intimated to us in connection with the ‘sarim of the nations.’”35 While
the sarim are entities and not mere ideas, they represent the ideological and cultural heritage of the
world’s nations—and thereby the means through which each nation leaves its indelible mark on
the vast tapestry of existence.

It is no wonder, then, that we find the prophet Yechezkel lamenting the destruction of heathen
nations who were not even our friends.36 Likewise, the Talmud relates that even the unavoidable
destruction of the Egyptians at the splitting of the sea elicited, so to speak, Divine sorrow.37 After
all, if every archetypal nation was endowed with an original character and an attendant,
unduplicated role in realizing the world’s destiny, the loss of any nation is calamitous.38 Beyond
the personal tragedies involved, such a loss necessarily entails an irreparable cosmic deficiency.
To be complete, the great crescendo of world history demands every player and every instrument
in the monumental symphony orchestra of Creation. Expressed by Rabbi Hirsch,

34
We are all working on one great edifice—all the nations…are being guided toward serving the
One God. The righteous among the nations, who exemplified unselfish justice and genuine
human dignity, lived for this goal. The enlightened among them labored for it when they lifted
up their brethren by word and deed to the One Alone, to respect for justice and to the elevation
of man above the level of beasts. Toward the overall goal of humanity, the art of the Greeks—
to the extent that it was morally clean—had a refining effect on the mind, and their thought—
to the extent that it embodied truth—enlightened the spirit. Toward this end, the Romans’ sword
united the nations; and, in a more peaceful way, the trade of the Europeans laid the basis for a
brotherly community of nations. Yisrael, too, has contributed to this end, in its own way.39

Yisrael’s Role Among the Nations

We can clarify Yisrael’s “own way” in this context based upon our earlier analogies. Like
the kohanim among us and “the heart among the organs,” Yisrael singularly lacks the sort of
particularized niche epitomized by the range of sarim. Thus, the Torah relates that, when this
hierarchy was “apportioned … to all the nations beneath all the heavens…God took you, and
brought you out of the iron crucible, out of Egypt, to be His heritage people, as you are today.”40
More expressly, “God’s portion is His people; Yaakov is the lot of His heritage.… God alone
guides it, and there is with Him no alien power.”41 The sar of the nation of Yisrael exercises
neither guidance nor governance, which God, so to speak, retains directly.42 Indeed, this sar is
introduced to Daniel as “Michael,” (see fn. 29) meaning “Who is like God?”—testifying simply
to the all-encompassing message that it is our sacred duty to promulgate. In this vein, the Midrash
stresses repeatedly that Yisrael is not part of the Divine scheme of sarim and nations (see fn. 30).
Altogether, Rabbi Saadyah Gaon asserts, “Yisrael is a nation solely through its Torahs.”43 It is to
remain at the essential core, heart-like, spiritually exalting and vivifying all the specific missions
animating the world’s diverse nations. This is, after all, consistently the kohen’s task: to uplift,
sanctify and unite all aspects of the periphery.

Moreover, the bestowal of Eretz Yisrael reflects the same dynamism that applies to Am Yisrael.
The Midrash observes, “The Holy One Blessed be He … when He created the world, apportioned
the lands to the sarim of the nations and chose Eretz Yisrael.… And He chose Yisrael for His
portion; as it is said, ‘But God’s portion is His people; Yaakov is the lot of His heritage.’ Said the
Holy One Blessed be He, ‘Yisrael, who came to [be] My portion, should come to and inherit the
Land, which came to [be] My portion.’”44 Similarly, the Zohar concludes, “The Holy One Blessed
be He distinguished all peoples and lands, to appoint delegates [for them]. Yet, no angel or other
delegate controls the Land of Yisrael; rather, He alone. Because of this, He brought the people that
none other controls to the land that none other controls.”45

Still, this special endowment—and its attendant intimacy with God—is no unconditional gift. As
Rabbi Yehudah Halevi notes, inherent in the role of the heart is its exceptional sensitivity.46 Thus,
Amos warns Yisrael in God’s name, “Only you have I known of all the families of the earth;
therefore, I shall reckon with all your iniquities upon you.”47 A parallel perspicacity, with equally
dire potential consequences, applies to Eretz Yisrael.48 With terrifying prescience, the Midrash
elaborates: “‘God’s wrath will be kindled against you’—and not against the nations of the world.
For the nations of the world will be saying, ‘[The nations] are immersed in goodness, and [the
Jews] are immersed in anguish; the nations of the world do not bury their sons and daughters, and
[the Jews] bury their sons and daughters.’”49 Instead of privileges, Yisrael’s national and

35
territorial identities are subordinated to its Divinely ordained historic mandate. In this land alone,
Jews acquire communal, not merely individual, status.50 Thus, only in its homeland, Yisrael can
expect to establish an autonomous model state permeated with true holiness,51 to illuminate and
inspire all nations. Furthermore, Eretz Yisrael’s placement at the historic epicenter of
civilization52 has consistently maximized our exposure and impact. Therefore, Rabbi Yehudah
Halevi explains, “This land—which is designated for the rectification of the entire world—was
prepared as a heritage for the tribes of the children of Yisrael.”53 Comments Rabbi Hirsch, “There,
Yisrael will dwell apart from the nations.…From it, the blessing will go forth; it will be the source
of blessing.”54 Equipping Yisrael with its land is a means to fulfilling its duties for all humankind.

Yisrael’s dereliction of its responsibilities affected both it and the world. The Talmud relates
cryptically that “the Holy One Blessed be He exiled Yisrael among the nations solely so proselytes
would be added to them.”55 It seems odd to regard such laudable conversions as a consequence
of Yisrael’s sins and most dire punishment. We should, however, contrast this dynamism with the
God-given ideal. Yisrael, as a sovereign state in its land, was to serve as a role model, instilling
Godliness in all nations, as the latter continue engaging in their particular national pursuits, all of
them means to perfecting God’s world. Varying the metaphor, the objective was not unison but
harmony: myriad distinctive melodies that complement—rather than compete with—one another.
In this portrayal, Yisrael is the orchestral conductor, charged with ensuring that every player is
properly synchronized, to contribute the best to the world’s great, emergent symphony. When
Yisrael neglected its task, apart from its own spiritual deficit, it forfeited its right to the land that
is “designated for the rectification of the entire world.” Exiled and bereft of the opportunity to
broadcast spirituality as an autonomous nation, it was reduced to functioning on the level of
individuals. At worst, these succumbed to the hierarchy of sarim and strove to abandon their
destiny altogether.56 (Jews seem to have always exemplified patriotism and nationalism on behalf
of the nations among whom they resided.) At best, we are still bidden in exile to epitomize personal
righteousness, which may stimulate our neighbors to convert. Nevertheless, such conduct is a
paltry substitute for the national ideal. The conductor, denied his baton, can yet train additional
conductors—but, all the while, the orchestra remains conductorless, producing cacophony and no
music.

Perfecting—and Redeeming—the Entire World

In this sorry state, the world still approaches its destination, albeit circuitously. Thus, Christianity
and Islam have functioned historically as our proxies—notwithstanding the unspeakable atrocities
perpetrated by many of their adherents—in disseminating the basics of God’s Torah and advancing
the world toward its final goal. Rabbi Yehudah Halevi describes them as the “preparation and
prelude to the awaited Mashiach, who is the [world’s] fruition.”57 More explicitly, Rambam
asserts, “All these matters of Jesus the Notzeri and of [Mohammed] the Yishmaeli, who arose after
him, are solely to straighten the way for the King Mashiach and to perfect all the world to serve
God together; as it is said, ‘For then I shall change to a clear language for peoples, for them all to
call in God’s Name [and] to serve Him with one accord’ [see fn. 23]….”58 Through them, the
fundamentals of ethical monotheism have spread to “the distant isles” and most of humanity. As
God chose us to be the heart, so they have served as arteries, infusing the heart’s spiritual vitality
throughout the world.

36
Moreover, we all yet yearn and strive to actualize the world’s ultimate destiny: “And it shall be at
the end of the days, the mountain of the house of God will be established on the top of the
mountains and exalted above the hills, and all the nations will stream to it.”59 Rashi defines the
prerequisite of “the end of the days” simply as “once criminals cease.” Nonetheless, people come
as “all the nations”—not as Jews—each bearing its distinct ideological and cultural heritage, but
bringing it to God’s house, to which, in the end, each realizes its unique legacy is dedicated. Rabbi
Hirsch notes that the “hoped-for ‘return’ [of all human beings to God] is not…a mass conversion
of all men to Judaism [but] … the conversion of all mankind to true humanity … in accordance
with the universal moral law, which has been handed down in the Torah of Judaism for all the rest
of mankind as well to follow.”60 As cited above, this alone can render international strife an
anachronistic absurdity. Likewise, Yeshayahu envisions God bringing “children of the stranger …
to My holy mountain and … rejoicing them in My house of prayer … for My house shall be called
a house of prayer for all the peoples.”61 As Rashi emphasizes, “a house of prayer for all the
peoples,” like the heralded ingathering itself, is not exclusively for Jews. Thus, Rabbi Hirsch
stresses, “The choosing of Yisrael … begins the rebuilding of the spiritual and moral edifice of
humanity.… The Temple of Yisrael will be … the center for all humanity redeemed in God.”62
Similarly, when accused, by the British commission deliberating the revocation of Jewish rights
to the Western Wall, that Jews aspired to build their Temple by destroying the mosques currently
occupying its location..

Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook replied: When it is time to rebuild the Temple, the Muslims will
run ahead to dissemble their mosques, eager to make room for God’s renewed “house of prayer
for all the peoples.” Indeed, the Midrash relates that, “had the nations of the world known what
good the Temple was for them, they would have surrounded it with fortifications to safeguard
it.”63 The redemption we seek is not only ours. Our objective, reiterated at the culmination of all
our prayers, is “to perfect the world through the reign of the Almighty” (see fn. 33).

Still, some will regard this perspective—or any that reaffirms the Torah’s assertion that Yisrael is
“chosen”—as unconscionably chauvinistic. Admittedly, there are among us those who, confusing
“segullah” with superiority, degrade and denigrate others. We yet have much to refine within
ourselves. Twenty years after narrowly surviving the Holocaust, Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg
nevertheless urged, “It is fitting to put an end to the hatred of the religions for each other.”64 The
antidote to such xenophobia, however, is not denying our historic role—rather, appreciating the
premise of worldwide fraternity that underlies it. The Mishnah’s observation that “man is beloved,
for he was created with the [Divine] essence”65 applies to both Jew and non-Jew. Likewise,
regarding all humankind, it teaches, “Man was created singly … so a person would not say to his
fellow, ‘[My] father is greater than your father.’”66 Rabbi Hirsch asks rhetorically, “Does not
Yisrael consider universal acceptance of the brotherhood of mankind to be its ultimate goal?” (See
fn. 3.) A conductor oblivious of the orchestra, like a heart divorced from the body’s other organs,
is worthless.

In practice, our mission nonetheless dictates that, presently, perforce, “Yisrael dwells alone.”67
But, Rabbi Hirsch challenges, “Does this spell enmity? Or pride? As if God were not the Lord of
all creatures, all men?” (See fn. 3.) As he explains elsewhere, Yisrael “has to remain separate until
the day on which all mankind will have absorbed the lessons of its experiences and the example
of this nation, and will united turn toward God.”68 Still, most crucially, this future we crave must
guide our attitude even now. Rabbi Kook exclaims, “I love everything. I cannot refrain from loving

37
all creatures, all peoples. With all the depths of my heart, I desire the glory of all, the perfection of
all. My love for Yisrael is more passionate, more profound; however, the inner yearning spreads
by the might of its love over everything.”69 Only thus, can we aspire finally to realize the prophets’
vision: “None shall hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain; for the world will be filled with
knowledge of God as the waters cover the seabed. And on that day, nations shall seek the root of
Yishai, which stands as a banner for peoples, and his resting place shall be glorious.”70 So may
we merit fulfilling it, speedily, in our days.

Notes
1. See Shemot 19:5; Devarim 7:6, 14:2, and 26:18 and Tehillim 135:4.
2. See Kohelet 2:8 and Divrei Hayamim I 29:3. In Talmudic literature, “segullah” means exclusively designated property,
to which no one but the owner has any rights. See Tosefta Terumot 1:15, Tosefta Babba Kamma 9:3 and 11:1, Babba
Kamma 87b, Babba Batra 52a, Yerushalmi Ketubbot 4:1 (22b) and Yerushalmi Babba Kamma 9:7 (30b).
3. “Letter Fifteen,” The Nineteen Letters, trans. Karin Paritzky, com. Joseph Elias (Jerusalem, 1995), 198.
4. Devarim 26:19.
5. Commentary on Devarim 28:10.
6. Yeshayahu 42:6, 49:6 and 60:3.
7. Radak and Metzudat David commentaries on Yeshayahu 60:3.
8. Sefer HaKuzari 2:36. The same simile appears in Zohar, III, 221b.
9. Shemot 19:6.
10. Yeshayahu 61:6.
11. Vayikra 10:11. See also Devarim 33:10.
12. See Yechezkel 44:23 and Malachi 2:7.
13. See Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shemittah VeYovel 13:12-3.
14. Berachot
15. Avot 2:12.
16. Shabbat 20a and 114b, et cetera.
17. See Babba Batra 160b and Sanhedrin 113a, and see Maharal, Chiddushei Aggadot on Sanhedrin, loc. cit.
18. Avot 1:12.
19. Shemot 19:5.
20. Commentary on Shemot 4:22.
21. Commentary on Tehillim 47:10, trans. Gertrude Hirschler.
22. “Letter Seven,” The Nineteen Letters, 105-6.
23. Tzefanyah 3:9.
24. Yeshayahu 42:6.
25. Zecharyah 9:10.
26. Yeshayahu 2:4.
27. 2:3.
28. Commentary on Tehillim 25:4.
29. See Daniel 10:13,20-1 and 12:1.
30. See Sifrei on Devarim 32:9 and 32:12; Shemot Rabbah 32:7; Bamidbar Rabbah 9:7 and 20:19; Devarim
Rabbah (Lieberman) 2:40; Tanchuma Noach 3, Vayeshev 1, Balak 12, Re’eh 8, and Ha’azinu 6; Pirkei DeRabbi
Eliezer 24 and Midrash Tehillim 5:1 and 28:1.
31. See Bereishit Rabbah 68:9.
32. See Berachot
33.
34. See Rabbi Tzadok HaKohen, Resisei Lailah, ch. 58 (p. 171).
35. Michtav MeEliyahu II (Jerusalem, 1963), 50. See also ibid. III (Benei Berak, 1964), 200 and 216, and IV (Jerusalem,
1983), 129.
36. See Yechezkel 27:1-36, 28:11-9 and 32:1-16.
37. See Megillah 10b and Sanhedrin 39b, and see Michtav MeEliyahu III, 216.
38. Regarding the correspondence between the seventy “archetypal” nations, each with its own sar, and the vastly greater
number of contemporary states, see Bamidbar Rabbah 9:14. Three primary colors can of course be mixed to produce
every hue in the spectrum. In light of the above midrash, we may consider the seventy “archetypal” nations, with their

38
 unique roles and distinct missions, to have combined to yield the gamut of modern states, each with its own novel
blend.
39. “Letter Fifteen,” The Nineteen Letters, 199-200.
40. Devarim 4:19-20.
41. 32:9,12.
42. See Ramban, commentary on Vayikra 18:25.
43. HaEmunot VeHaDeot 3:7.
44. Tanchuma Re’eh
45. Zohar, I, 108b. See also Ta’anit
46. See Sefer HaKuzari 2:44.
47. Amos 3:2. See also Tanna DeVei Eliyahu Rabba 15:9 (29a), Midrash Yitbarach and Zohar, II, 17b, and see Sefer
HaKuzari, loc. cit.
48. From the Torah’s threatened punishment of exile, the Midrash concludes: “Eretz Yisrael is not like all the rest of the
world; it does not sustain violators of transgressions” (Sifra on Vayikra 20:22). See also Vayikra 18:25 and Devarim
11:10-2 with commentaries.
49. Sifrei on Devarim 11:17.
50. See Berachot 58a and Horayot See also Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shegagot 13:2.
51. In this vein, the Talmud states, “There is no semichah [ordination] outside the Land” (Sanhedrin 14a); the full judicial
fabric that is the hallmark of true Jewish society can develop only in Eretz Yisrael. See also Mishneh
Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin 4:4,6, 5:8-17 and 13:8; Tur, Choshen Mishpat 1, 2 and 420 and Shulchah Aruch, Choshen
Mishpat 1:1.
52. See Tanchuma Kedoshim See also Ramban, commentary on Bereishit 12:8, that the patriarchs’ mission to teach
humanity about God was principally focused in Eretz Yisrael.
53. Sefer HaKuzari 2:16.
54. Commentary of Bereishit 12:3.
55. Pesachim
56. Conceptually, this is the intent expressed by Jewish exiles in Yechezkel 20:32 and further detailed in Sanhedrin Note
that, as prophesied by Yechezkel, such attempts to sever our bond to God and reject our attendant identity and its
concomitant responsibilities are ultimately doomed to failure.
57. Sefer HaKuzari 4:23.
58. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 11:4 (uncensored version). See also “Letter Nine,” The Nineteen Letters, 126.
59. Yeshayahu 2:2.
60. Commentary on Aleinu, in The Hirsch Siddur, trans. Gertrude Hirschler (Jerusalem, 1978), pp. 208-9.
61. Yeshayahu 56:6-7.
62. Commentary on Vayikra 20:26.
63. Bamidbar Rabbah 1:3, Vayikra Rabbah 1:11 and Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2:3 (5). Regarding the benefit of the Temple to
the nations of the world, see in addition Melachim I 8:41-3 and Divrei Hayamim II 6:32-3, and see Sukkah An
alternative midrash relates that the seventy archetypal nations wept with Yisrael over the Temple’s destruction.
See Eichah Rabbah 1:23.
64. Letter to Professor Samuel Atlas, 15 November 1965, quoted by Marc B. Shapiro, “Scholars and Friends: Rabbi Jehiel
Jacob Weinberg and Professor Samuel Atlas,” Torah U-Madda Journal 7 (1997), 118.
65. Avot 3:14.
66. Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5.
67. Devarim 33:28.
68. “Letter Seven,” The Nineteen Letters, 106-7.
69. Arfillei Tohar (Jerusalem, 1983), 31.
70. Yeshayahu 11:9-10.

39
 Esther Denouncing Haman by Ernest Normand

Prof. Yonatan Grossman writes:15

When do the events of Megillat Esther take place? Megillat Esther opens by answering this

very question: "It was in the days of Achashverosh – he was Achashverosh who ruled from India

to Ethiopia, 127 provinces" (1:1). This opening statement is meant to influence our understanding

of the subsequent events and their significance.

15
https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/ketuvim/megillat-esther/hidden-background-megillat-esther

40
 Interestingly, the introductory verse focuses the reader's attention on the Persian regime,

rather than the corresponding state of the Jewish nation (for instance, "It was during the seventh

year of the exile of Judea," or the suchlike). In this respect, the narrator plays innocent and conveys

the sense that he is about to tell a story of the Persian Empire. This is one of the motifs interwoven

throughout the megilla: the disparity between the Persian exterior of the narrative and the Jewish

perspective within it.

Any discussion of the historical setting of the megilla must mention the well-known debate

as to the identity of King Achashverosh. Clearly, he was one of the Persian kings of the

Achaemenid dynasty (539-330 B.C.E.). This dynasty, comprising ten generations of kings, began

with Cyrus, who defeated the Babylonians (539 B.C.E.), and ended with the death of Darius III

(330 B.C.E.), approximately three years after the conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander the

Great, ushering in the Hellenistic period.

But which of the Achaemenid kings was Achasheverosh? Among contemporary scholars,

opinions are divided into two main schools of thought:

A. Giving the narrative a later date tends to identify Achashverosh with Artaxerxes II

(404-359 B.C.E.). This view is supported by the Septuagint (where the king's name

appears as "Artaxerxes") and by Josephus (Antiquities XI 6,1).

B. An earlier – and more widely accepted – date identifies Achashverosh as Xerxes I

(486-465 B.C.E.).

41
This latter view rests upon four major proofs:

1. The king's Persian name – ‫ – חשיארש‬is very similar to the name in Hebrew

– ‫אחשורוש‬, especially when attention is paid to the way in which the name is written

in 10:1, without the vav.

2. The Greek historian Herodotus, who describes the Achaemenid Persian dynasty in

vivid colors, speaks of Xerxes as a king overcome with lust for women and wine

(echoing the description of Achashverosh in Esther), as having a magnificent

palace in Shushan, and as reigning from India to Ethiopia.

3. In the Babylonian city of Sifar, an administrative record was discovered noting that

during the period of this king there was a senior official from the city of Shushan

who served as the royal treasurer by the name of Marduk‫ג‬. This name is highly

reminiscent of Mordekhai the Jew.

4. Finally, the only other biblical reference (outside of Esther) to Haman's decree,

in Ezra, would seem to identify Achashverosh as Xerxes:

If, indeed, Achashverosh is Xerxes, then we have an orderly account of the beginning of

the dynasty: Cyrus – Darius – Xerxes (Achashverosh) – Artaxerxes.

42
 As noted, this is the most widely accepted identification among the scholars of that period,

and – as we shall discover – this information is of great importance in revealing the hidden

meanings of the narrative.

If Achashverosh is indeed Xerxes, then the narrative transpires about one hundred years after

the destruction of the First Temple and – more importantly – about thirty years after the dedication

of the altar of the Second Temple.

Thus, it becomes immediately apparent that the people of Shushan – including Mordekhai

and Esther – were not among those Jews who returned to the Land of Israel, who responded

positively to Cyrus's proclamation of freedom to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple. While

the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel is struggling to exist, to survive, to build the Temple –

the Jews of Shushan are sitting comfortably, enjoying the sumptuous feast organized by the Persian

king for all the inhabitants of his capital.

The situation of those Jews who had returned to the Land of Israel from the Babylonian exile

was dire. This was true both in the politico-religious realm (since the other nations living in the

land opposed the rebuilding of the Temple) and especially in the economic sphere, to the point

where some were forced to sell their children into indentured servitude so as to be able to pay the

heavy taxes imposed upon them (Nechemia 5:1-4). Towards the end of Nechemia's leadership,

the priestly tithes and other gifts were no longer given, for lack of financial ability

(Nechemia 13:10).

43
 Yet, while this battle for survival was going on in their homeland, the Jews of Shushan

flourished and enjoyed an abundance of material comforts. At the beginning of Esther we discern

no hint of any discrimination against the Jews of Shushan. On the contrary, some of them attain

senior positions in the Persian kingdom, and some of their children even marry into Persian

royalty. As noted previously, the introductory words, "It was in the days of Achashverosh," serve

to focus our attention away from what was going on in the Land of Israel and towards the events

in Persia. Is this an innocent declaration, implying that the story has nothing to do with the Jewish

history going on in the Land of Israel, or is it a pretense of innocence? According to the latter

option, the narrative indeed appears to be disconnected from the goings-on in the Land of Israel,

while in fact it points to the author's discomfort at focusing on the Jews of Shushan while ignoring

their brethren who are struggling desperately in the Land of Israel.

In this context, it is interesting to go back to the description of Haman's decrees as recorded

in Ezra – a description that reflects the perspective of those who had returned to Zion: "During the

reign of Achashverosh, at the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the

inhabitants of Judea and Jerusalem" (Ezra 4:6). If the accusation recorded in this verse refers to

Haman's decree, then it is described in a most surprising manner. Was Haman's decree really only

written concerning "the inhabitants of Judea and Jerusalem"? From the description of the decrees

in Esther, we know that they applied throughout "all of the king's provinces" – i.e., all 127

provinces!

This is a rare instance in which we discern a dual attitude towards the same event, from the

two real, historical perspectives of the authors of two different works. Esther, narrated from the

44
Shushanite perspective, expresses the danger hovering over the continued existence of the entire

Jewish nation, and the great salvation that comes to the Jews thanks to the actions of Mordekhai

and Esther. In Ezra, by contrast – written from the perspective of the Land of Israel – the focus of

the decrees is the danger that they pose towards the Jewish settlement in the land. Ezra's focus on

the Jews' attempt to renew their national existence in their land places the events of that period

under a "Land of Israel" magnifying glass, and it is from this perspective that Haman's decrees are

conveyed.

The difference in perspective between these two books hints at an ideological-moral

debate. The two Jewish centers of the time were at odds, and the historian seeking to record the

story of Jewish history is forced to choose where his focus will be: the Land of Israel, where the

Jewish settlement is struggling for its survival and trying to build the Second Temple, or the

majority of the Jewish nation, which is still in the Babylonian-Persian exile.

The Babylonian Talmud (especially in Tractate Megilla) offers literary readings

of Esther that reveal its hidden strata. The tension between the inhabitants of Shushan and the

inhabitants of the Land of Israel, busy building the Second Temple, surfaces in several teachings.

Thus, for example, Achashverosh is described as counting seventy years from the time when Israel

was led into exile, and when he saw that after seventy years (according to his count) they had not

been redeemed, he assumed that they would never be. At that point, he brought out the Temple

vessels and used them at the feast that he held for the inhabitants of Shushan (Megilla 11a; see

also 19a). Since Achashverosh believed the Temple was not going to be rebuilt, the vessels could

serve the Persian king at his feasts.

45
 Can we find any hint of this tension within the text itself? Does the megilla hint in any way

to the Jewish center in the Land of Israel and to the Temple being built there? It would seem that

the answer is yes. There are hints throughout the narrative, but for now let us concentrate on the

description of the royal palace, and the description of the feasts in chapter 1.

The megillah’s description of the royal palace is reminiscent of the structure of the Temple

– especially as recorded in the vision of Yechezkel. The comparison is striking in the arrangement

of the royal palace in two halls, "the inner court of the king's house" (5:1) and "the outer court"

(6:4). This connection may find further support in the author's use of the title "capital" (bira) for

the palace precinct in Shushan. It is clear that this was an accepted name for this region of

Persia. Daniel, too, refers to it in his vision: "I saw in a vision, and it was when I saw, that I was

in Shushan the capital (bira), which is in the province of Elam" (Daniel 8:2). Still, it may be no

coincidence that the other place in the Bible that is referred to as "bira" is Jerusalem (and the

Temple within it), as, for example, in David's prayer: "And to Shelomo, my son, grant a whole

heart to observe Your commandments, testimonies and statutes, and to perform all of it, and to

build the capital (bira) which I have prepared" (I Divrei Ha-yamim 29:19). By using this term, the

author may be raising a subtle question: which is the "bira"? Which is the royal city – the city of

Achashverosh's kingdom, or the city in which the Temple is located?

Similarly, in the description of the feast that is held in the royal palace, it seems that the

author of Esther seeks to bring the Temple to the reader’s mind. Attention should be paid to the

materials listed in the description of the feast: "Hangings of white, of fine cotton, and blue, fastened

46
with cords of fine linen and purple" (1:6). A quick comparison shows that the associations aroused

by these materials are clearly related to the Temple:

- "Blue" (tekhelet) is mentioned in Tanakh forty-nine times. Out of these,

forty-two appearances are connected to the Sanctuary and the Temple.

- The "cords of fine linen" likewise are reminiscent of the Temple. "Fine

linen" (butz) is mentioned in Tanakh seven times. It appears twice in Esther,

and once in Yechezkel's prophecy concerning Tyre (27:17). The other four

appearances are connected to the Temple and the Ark of God's

Covenant (I Divrei Ha-yamim 15:26; II Divrei Ha-yamim 2:13; 3:14; 5:12).

- “Purple” makes thirty-eight appearances in Tanakh, twenty-nine of them

related to the creation of the Sanctuary and the building of the Temple.

- It is possible that the use of the unusual verb y-s-d, with reference to the

establishment of law and custom ("For so the king had instructed all the

officers of his house, to do according to the wishes of each person" – 1:8), may

be meant to arouse associations of the verb y-s-d in Tanakh – which concern

the establishment of God's city and God's

House (I Melakhim 6:37; Yishayahu 14:32;

28:16; Chaggai 2:18; Zekharya 8:9). Against this background, the reader

learns of the "establishment" of a special law by the king – that anyone who

attends the feast is entitled to drink as much as he chooses to, and whichever

type of wine he prefers.

47
 Clearly, then, by invoking these materials and colors, the author seeks to arouse associations

of a different place with a different atmosphere. The unlimited drinking and exaggerated self-

aggrandizement with wealth and riches serve as a pointed contrast to the Temple. Attention to the

Temple associations turns the narrative upside down: the atmosphere of gaiety that characterizes

the descriptions of the king's feasting, turns, in the mind of the reader (the target reader, to whom

the narrative is addressed), into an atmosphere of anguish and destruction. The vivid colors of the

feast that – on the level of the plain reading – add majesty to the narrative, suddenly turn into

symbols of destruction for the Jewish people, a commemoration of the Temple and a condemnation

of the Jews of Shushan, luxuriating in the lavish royal feast rather than helping their brethren who

had returned to their land.16

16
Translated by Kaeren Fish

48
 Review of Yehuda Landy: Purim and the Persian Empire

Mitchell First writes:17

17
https://thelehrhaus.com/culture/review-of-yehuda-landy-purim-and-the-persian-empire/

49
In 2010, Feldheim Publishers published Purim and the Persian Empire by Yehuda Landy, an
Orthodox rabbi and educator in Israel. Landy knew very little about ancient Persia until around
2006, when he visited a special exhibit on this subject at the British Museum. As he looked around
at the displays, he was shocked at how much archaeological material there was that confirmed
details of the Megillah. Since he knew that the vast majority of the Orthodox world knew nothing
about this material, he decided to collect it and publish it as a book. He included a text of the
Megillah as well, so the reader can use his book while following along with the reading.

The book has wonderful color photos of archaeological findings. These include the remains at
ancient Shushan and several other Persian palaces from this period, the inscription at Behistun of
Darius that tells the story of his rise to power,[1] many cuneiform inscriptions from the reign of
Xerxes, a relief with an image of Xerxes sitting on a throne,[2] the tombs of the ancient Persian
kings, and ancient Persian drinking vessels and seals.

Landy’s goal is to help the reader visualize the sites and items mentioned in the Megillah, and he
succeeds admirably in this regard. He writes that when he showed the prototype to two gedolei
Yisrael, their response was identical: “When are you going to print this?”

But the author faced a difficulty in deciding how to present the material, because Hazal and secular
chronology have two different views of the number and order of the kings of the Persian period.

According to Hazal, the Persian period spanned only the reigns of Koresh, Ahashverosh, and
Daryavesh. The total of the years of these kings was 52 (if we include the one- year reign of
Daryavesh of Madai who preceded Koresh). Based on the chronology of Hazal, it can be calculated
that the Persian period commenced with the reign of Koresh in the year 368 BCE. Thereafter,
Ahashverosh reigned from 366 to 352 BCE. The Temple was rebuilt in 351 BCE in the reign of
the next king, Daryavesh.[3] This chronology of Hazal, i.e., the chronology of the Talmud,[4] is
based on the Tannaitic work Seder Olam, authored/edited by the Tanna R. Yose.[5]

In contrast, in secular chronology, the Persian period spanned the reigns of more than ten Persian
kings, including Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I, Xerxes, Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Artaxerxes II,
Artaxerxes III, Arses, and Darius III.[6] These kings reigned from 539-332 B.C.E.[7]

Further adding to the complication faced by Landy is a disagreement between Hazal and secular
sources regarding the time period of Ahashverosh. According to Hazal, Ahashverosh preceded the
Daryavesh in whose reign the Second Temple was built. However, based on the linguistic
evidence, it is almost certain that the name Ahashverosh is a reference to Xerxes. According to
secular sources, Xerxes reigned from 486-465 B.C.E., after the Temple had been rebuilt in the
reign of his father Darius I in 516 B.C.E.

This identification of Ahashverosh with Xerxes was only determined once Old Persian cuneiform
was deciphered in the mid-19th century. Once the code was cracked, it was discovered that the
name of the king that the Greeks had been referring to as “Xerxes” was in fact “Khshayarsha”; the
Greeks could not properly record his name because they did not have a letter to represent

50
the shin sound.[8] “Khshayarsha” is very close to the Hebrew ‫אחשורוש‬, with the two names identical
in their consonantal structure, both centering on the consonantal sounds kh, sh, r and sh, and the
Hebrew only adding two vavs and an initial aleph. [9] Even scholars who do not believe in the
historicity of the Megillah are typically willing to accept that when the Megillah refers to
Ahashverosh, the intent is a reference to Xerxes-Khshayarsha.[10]

Given the large contradictions between the chronology of Hazal and the secular chronology, how
did Landy present his material? In Part I, the background section of the book, he presents the
chronology of the Persian period according to Hazal in the first chapter, and the chronology
according to secular sources in the second.

Later, in Chapter Four, Landy discusses the identity of Ahashverosh. Whereas on p. 42, he is
willing to conclude that Ahashverosh is Xerxes,[11] earlier in the chapter, on p. 40, he refers to “we
who accept Chazal’s chronology.” These statements cannot be reconciled; if one accepts Hazal’s
chronology, then Ahashverosh is between Koresh and Daryavesh, and cannot be Xerxes, who is
the son of Darius=Daryavesh.

Of course it is not Landy’s fault that he ends up adopting these inconsistent positions. He was
forced into it by feeling obligated to defend Hazal’s difficult chronology of three Persian
kings.[12] At the same time, he realizes that the arguments for identifying
Ahashverosh/Khshayarsha with Xerxes are compelling. But by taking these inconsistent positions,
he was able to achieve his goal of publicizing the visual material to the Orthodox world, who may
otherwise be reluctant to acknowledge the historicity of secular sources over Hazal.

A Deep Dive into Archaeology

The main part of Landy’s book is Part II: “Excerpts from Megillas Esther with Related Historical
and Archaeological Material.”

Landy provides much interesting information here. For example, we are provided with a picture
of a “pur” (lot), pictures and explanations of cuneiform writing, explanations of foreign words in
the Megillah, and an explanation of the Babylonian background to the names of our months. We
are pointed to a Persian cuneiform inscription which uses an expression similar to “me-Hodo ve-
ad Kush.” It is also explained why Ahashverosh’s initial party was not until the third year of his
reign (Xerxes was putting down revolts before this), and why Esther was not chosen until his
seventh year (Xerxes was away fighting the Greeks). Citations to the fifth century B.C.E. Greek
historian Herodotus[13] and to archaeological material abound.

Landy also mentions some archaeological evidence for an individual who might be the Mordecai
of the Megillah. Findings at one of the Persian palaces, Persepolis, refer to several palace officials
with the name Marduka or Marduku. But it is speculative to think that any of these are references
to our Mordecai. (Landy overlooks the most important evidence for the Mordecai of the Megillah:
a statement in the ancient Greek historian Ctesias about a high official of Xerxes named
“Matacas.”[14])

51
At times, Landy tries to interpret statements of the Sages as if they are consistent with the historical
background stated in Herodotus. For example, at Megillah 11a, Rav tells us that the word “ha-
molekh”(1:1) implies that Ahashverosh thrust himself into the throne, even though he was not
supposed to rule. Landy observes that we know from Herodotus (Book VII) that Xerxes was not
the eldest son of Darius and yet was able to convince his father to name him as successor. But as
the Sages and Herodotus had completely different views of the chronology of the period, their
historical statements cannot and therefore should not be interpreted in light of one another.

Fortunately, there is a different book that gives an excellent background to the Persian kings of the
Biblical period and adopts the correct chronology: Edwin M. Yamauchi’s Persia and the
Bible (1990). It is easy to read, with many pictures and charts (though in black and white, unlike
Landy’s vivid color), and gives us all the background to the Megillah that we need. In a clear and
organized manner, Yamauchi presents all that ancient historians and archaeology teach us about
the reigns of kings Cyrus, Cambyses,[15] Darius I, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes I. This period is well-
documented in narrative history and in archaeology, which is what generated my interest in the
period over 30 years ago.

Yamauchi’s book has 524 pages of historical background. (In contrast, Landy’s book has only 42
pages of historical background, and a large part of them, e.g., pages 1-9 and part of page 40, are
following incorrect chronology.) Although published thirty years ago, Yamauchi’s book seems to
be little known in the Orthodox world, perhaps because it is meant for general readers, and not
specifically for Orthodox Jewish ones. Yamauchi’s book is an excellent way to familiarize oneself
with the five kings from Cyrus through Artaxerxes I. Once a reader understands the proper
historical background, then the reader can utilize Landy’s book and learn much from the details
he provides, such as insights into selected verses in the Megillah, which Yamauchi’s book
obviously lacks.

Identifying Esther in Secular Sources

While Landy writes about the identification of Ahashverosh with Xerxes, he does not discuss the
identification of Esther in secular sources. Regarding Xerxes’ queen, he writes only (p. 57): “In all
archaeological material from the Persian Empire, there is barely any mention of a queen by name.”
While this is true, there is much about the wife of Xerxes in narrative sources: in Herodotus, and
in the later Greek historian, Ctesias. She is never called “queen” in these sources, but she is the
only wife of Xerxes that Herodotus and Ctesias ever mention. Herodotus and Ctesias, writing in
Greek, give her name as “Amestris.”

It is understandable that Landy does not want to get into the issue of the possible identification of
Esther with Amestris, since Herodotus, in one of his three references to her, tells a story about her
cruelty. (Ctesias describes her in unflattering terms as well, but Ctesias is much less known.)
Almost every Orthodox writer who understands that Ahashverosh is Xerxes avoids the issue of
Xerxes’ queen altogether.[16] But I have discussed this issue extensively and argued strongly for
the identification of Esther with Amestris in one of the articles in my Esther Unmasked: Solving
Eleven Mysteries of the Jewish Holidays and Liturgy (2015).[17]

52
Unlike Landy, Yamauchi does discuss Amestris. But one flaw in his otherwise excellent book is
that he nowhere considers the possibility that Amestris may be Esther. Rather, he raises the
possibility that Amestris may be Vashti. But this identification is very difficult in light of the
demotion of Vashti referred to early in the reign of Ahashverosh at verse 1:19.

Conclusion

At verse 10:2, the Megillah invites us to search outside the Tanakh for additional information
about Ahashverosh. Although the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia referred to are no
longer available, we do have much archaeological material and the writings of Herodotus and some
later Greek historians. Both Landy’s book and Yamauchi’s book provide us with useful guides to
these materials and the light they shed on the Megillah.

[1]
This is the Darius=Daryavesh in whose reign the Temple was rebuilt.

[2]
It is not certain that the relief depicts Xerxes, as it is possible that the king depicted may be his son Artaxerxes. In any event,
those who sculpted these reliefs tended to give all the Persian kings the same stylized appearance.

[3]
The idea that Daryavesh was the son of Ahashverosh is not found in Seder Olam or in the Talmud. It is only a minority view
that appears in Leviticus Rabbah (13:5) and Esther Rabbah (8:3). Later it became widely quoted.

[4]
See, e.g., Megillah 11b.

[5]
Seder Olam and the Talmud obviously do not list “BCE” dates, which need to be calculated. There are different assumptions
that have to be made in doing the calculation. While others may calculate differently from the way I do, the result will always be
within 1-3 years of the dates I provide.

[6]
See, e.g., Ronald Kent, Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, p. 158 (2nd ed. 1953). In this list I only include kings whose
reigns spanned one year or more.

[7]
It is clear based on a variety of evidence (e.g., Greek historians, Old Persian cuneiform inscriptions, and certain sections of
the Tanakh) that the secular chronology is the correct one, but it is possible to explain the chronology of Seder Olam.
The Tanakh provides the data for the early Biblical periods, but stops in the middle of the Persian period, only mentioning a
handful of Persian kings by name. To get the length of the entire Second Temple period, R. Yose had to rely on a prediction in
the 9th chapter of Daniel that refers to a future 490 year period, the endpoints of which are ambiguous. For various reasons, R.
Yose chose to interpret this prediction as referring to a 70 year exilic period and a 420 year Second Temple period. Since it was
known that the Second Temple was destroyed in approximately year 380 of the Seleucid Era, this left only 40 years for the total
of the Persian period portion of the Second Temple period, and the period from Alexander until the beginning of the Seleucid
Era. For more information, see my Jewish History in Conflict: A Study of the Major Discrepancy Between Rabbinic and
Conventional Chronology (1997), pp. 161-72.

[8]
For further explanation of the Greek form of his name, see my Esther Unmasked: Solving Eleven Mysteries of the Jewish
Holidays and Liturgy (2015), pp. 135-36.

[9]
Based on archaeology, we now know the name of Xerxes not just in Old Persian but in Elamite and Akkadian as well. Both the
Elamite and the Akkadian versions of the name also have an initial vowel sound; in Elamite, the name has an initial “i” sound,
while in Akkadian, the name usually has an initial “a” sound. With regard to the vavs, sometimes the Megillah spells the name
with only one vav, and once, at 10:1, with no vavs.

53
[10]
2,500 years later there are still people in Iran (and the U.S.) today with the first or last name “Khshayarsha,” or a name
derived from it, like “Khashayarsha,” or “Khashayar.”

[11]
Landy’s discussion in this chapter is not an adequate one. He understands that linguistically the name Khshayarsha matches
the name Ahashverosh, but he does not discuss the fourth chapter of Ezra. There, the sequence of verses 4:5-7 is a strong
argument that the Ahashverosh of verse 6 reigned between the Daryavesh of verse 5 and the Artahshasta of verse 7, which
corresponds exactly to when Xerxes reigned. The book of Esther had not mentioned which Persian king preceded or followed
Ahashverosh, so the mention of Ahashverosh in the fourth chapter of Ezra is crucial to establishing his identity.

The fourth chapter of Ezra has always been a confusing one. Hazal had their own understanding of it, in which Ahashverosh
could be placed between Koresh and Daryavesh. But once it was realized in modern times that the name Ahashverosh was a
linguistic match to Khshayarsha, then the proper understanding of the chapter came to light. Verses 6-23 are a digression to the
two kings that followed Daryavesh and the difficulties the Jews had in their reigns. Verse 24 then resumes the main narrative in
the reign of Daryavesh (“a resumptive repetition”). See the article by Richard Steiner, in Journal of Biblical Literature 125
(2006), pp. 641-85, and the Da’at Mikra to Ezra, pp. 27 and 35.

[12]
For example, on p. 40, he reiterates some weak suggestions that have been made by those who follow Hazal’s chronology to
attempt to explain the extra kings and years that exist in secular history. For example, he considers the possibility that some of the
people labeled as kings were only assistant kings and that it is therefore an error to include their years in the tally. Such
suggestions can easily be refuted.

[13]
A major part of Herodotus’ Histories discusses the first seven years of the reign of Xerxes. Herodotus also writes much about
the reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius. Herodotus has been called the “Father of History.” (But he has also been called the
“Father of Lies!”)

[14]
See my Esther Unmasked, pp. 161-63. Ctesias’ work dates to the early 4th century B.C.E.

[15]
Cambyses is alluded to in the ve-ad of Ezra 4:5.

[16]
One who does deal with the issue is Gavriel Chaim Cohen, in his introduction to the Megillah in Mossad HaRav
Kook’s Hamesh Megillot (Da’at Mikra). While he realized that Ahashverosh was Xerxes, he was unwilling to identify Esther
with Amestris. He took the position that Esther was never the main wife of Xerxes, but was one of other wives of a lesser status.
But this position cannot be reconciled with verse 2:17. Moreover, Esther is called ha-malkah 17 times thereafter. In
contrast, Da’at Mikra to Trei Asar, vol. 2, in an appendix, suggests (with a question mark) that Amestris is Esther, but does not
include any discussion.

Most recently, Erica Brown, in the new Maggid edition of Esther (2020), writes only: “Some have tried to link Esther directly
with Amestris or Amestris with Vashti, but either identification is improbable” (p. 250). She does not discuss the issue further.

[17]
PP. 129-67. Very briefly, a close examination of the name “Amestris” supports its identification with Esther. The “is” at the
end was just a suffix added in Greek to turn the foreign name into proper Greek grammatical form, just as “es” was added at the
end of “Xerxes.” When comparing the remaining consonants, the name of the wife of Xerxes is recorded in Herodotus and
Ctesias is based around the consonants M, S, T, and R, and the name as recorded in the Megillah is based around the consonants
S, T, and R. Out of the numerous possible consonants in these languages, three consonants are the same and in the same order,
and it is very unlikely that this is mere coincidence. Perhaps her Persian name was composed of the consonants M, S, T, and R,
and the M was not preserved in the Hebrew. We do not have any Persian sources for her name.

With regard to the unflattering depictions of Amestris by Herodotus and Ctesias, these can be easily discounted. Since the Greeks
and Persians were enemies, it is very easy to take the position that the tales told by the Greek historians about the Persian royal
women should not be believed. A mainstream view today is that what the Greek historians wrote about the Persian royal women
should be viewed as literature and not as history.

More responses to the difficulties raised with the identification of Amestris with Esther can be found in my article on the topic
in Esther Unmasked.

54
 Esther and Ahasuerus
Geldorp Gortzius(Leuven 1553 – ca. 1619 Cologne)

Leonard Grunstein writes:18

The story of Purim is a study of what appears to be a series of random acts and chance that are
actually the result of divine providence.

Achasverosh, a usurper to the throne of Persia[i], marries then Princess Vashti, palming off her
royal provenance[ii] by making her his Queen. The Megillah begins with an account of the grand
ball he threw in the third year of his reign[iii].

18
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/purim-not-by-chance-divine-providence-prevails/

55
At the party, he kills his first wife, Queen Vashti, at the suggestion of his best friend[iv], Haman[v].
He then kills his best friend Haman, because of his second wife[vi] Queen Esther[vii]. He was not
a very loyal and reliable person and it’s understandable that Esther and Mordechai did not fully
place their trust in him.

Haman was an Amalakite[viii] and implacable enemy of the Jewish people. Like his ancestors, he
sought the utter destruction of the Jewish people[ix] and to eradicate their legacy of a Torah system
of ethical values, norms and mores[x]. The Talmud notes that even before he was promoted to a
position of authority under Achasverosh, the stage was set for the failure of his nefarious plan[xi].
Queen Esther and Mordechai were already well placed to frustrate his malign intentions and to
save the Jewish people.

This is a key theme of the Megillah. We are guided by divine providence, the antithesis of
Amalek’s creed that everything is just a matter of chance[xii]. This does not mean being passive
in the face of the challenges life presents. To the contrary, we are called upon to act properly and
to the best of our ability. Thus, Mordechai encouraged Queen Esther to intervene, with her husband
King Achasverosh, to save the Jewish people from the evil designs of Haman. This was despite
the personal risks she would incur by acting so boldly. He advised, if she kept silent in this pending
crisis, then relief and deliverance of the Jews would come from another source[xiii]. However, he
urged she should be cognizant of the fact that perhaps she was put in this position precisely so she
would have the opportunity to perform this vital role. Esther responded positively and acted
decisively. She recognized the wisdom of Mordechai’s cogent argument that she had to act now
while she enjoyed the King’s favor[xiv]. Delay was not advisable; because there was no assurance
her favored position would continue[xv], especially given Achasverosh’s temperament and fickle
nature.

Mordechai’s message to Esther was that these were not random occurrences. Even Haman’s
figuratively throwing of the dice[xvi] to determine the most propitious date for the planned
massacre of the Jews was also not just a matter of chance. Divine providence guided events so that
the date picked was almost a year later to provide an adequate time period to counter Haman’s
efforts.

The Megillah records Esther successfully enabled the Jewish people to be saved and victorious
defensive battles were fought against the forces[xvii] Haman had assembled to annihilate the Jews.
Achasverosh received an interim report and the Talmud[xviii] reports he was angered by the
number of fatalities suffered by his erstwhile supporters in the Haman cabal, in the capital of
Shushan[xix]. He wanted to speak harshly to Esther; but was prevented from doing so by divine
intervention. Instead, he asked Esther what else he might do for her[xx]. She responded asking for
one more day for the Jews in Shushan to root out their enemies. This seemingly anomalous
occurrence in the Megillah invites further inquiry and analysis.

Why did she ask for what amounts to additional security for the Jews in the Diaspora community
of Shushan? Why not use this extraordinary opportunity to focus on another situation that was
sorely in need of a solution? She might have asked for the right to rebuild Jerusalem and its walls
so as to assure the security of Israel[xxi]. Interestingly, Nehemiah[xxii], when presented with a

56
similar opening, does focus on the need to rebuild Jerusalem and is rewarded with the authority to
make it so. Yet Esther didn’t and the question is why?

Rabbi Yonatan Eyebeshitz[xxiii] takes up the issue and his answer is most instructive. He cites a
most intriguing discussion in the Talmud[xxiv]. It reports that there is a prescribed sequence of
three commandments that must be performed when the Jewish people enter the Land of Israel.
First they must appoint a king; next they must subdue Amalek; and then only can they proceed
with building the Beit HaMikdash. This is because there is no completion of the link to the divine
unless the malign influence of Amalek is quelled. In essence, it is Amalek’s propagation of its
denial of divine providence that interrupts the link. This might help explain why Esther
concentrated on dealing with Amalek first.

Consider, Mordechai had been designated by Achasveros to be the King of the Jews[xxv].
However, while the Jews were saved, the inimical and antithetical influence of Amalek had not
been fully subdued. Haman had more progeny[xxvi] than the ten sons expressly named in the
Megillah[xxvii], as well as, many followers. The center for the Amalikites was in Shushan[xxviii].
Deterring them from attacking the Jews was also of prime importance.

It is suggested the request for an additional day to deal with Shushan[xxix] was a fundamental part
of Esther’s plan. It was designed to militate against any assertion that somehow the defense by the
Jewish people was just some unexpected spontaneous occurrence that would likely not be repeated.
Haman’s crew might have argued it was just the luck of the draw and mere chance that the Jews
happened to defend themselves that day. As was their nature, they might have speculated, why not
try again the next day? After all, they did not believe in divine providence.

Defeating this malevolent philosophy of Amalek, which had infected so many, required
demonstrating that the victory was the result of divine providence and not just a quirk of fate.
Obtaining a new separate mandate for Shushan helped establish that this was not some random
event, but a part of an ongoing program. There was a plan and it was genuinely and determinedly
being pursued in earnest by the Jewish Queen Esther and newly empowered Mordechai. It was
designed to break the false narrative reliant on pronouncements that the world was governed by
mere chance. Their elevation and ongoing power was proof that the divine providence guided
world affairs and the destiny of the Jewish people.

It is, therefore, no accident that Esther’s son Artaxerxes[xxx] (also known as Daryovish in the
Megillah) becomes king and Nehemiah becomes his royal cupbearer. According to the
Malbim[xxxi], Esther is there, as the Queen Mother[xxxii], when Artaxerxes asks Nehemiah
what’s bothering him and Nehemiah responds by voicing his concern about securing Jerusalem.
Artaxerxes then authorizes Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem[xxxiii]. As noted above, by this time
Amalek had been quelled. It is also interesting to note that, in addition to the special role of
Mordechai described above, Artaxerxes was a Jewish king, actually and fully in power at the time.
The role of divine providence in enabling the foregoing is veritably indisputable.

The hidden hand of G-d is often unnoticeable as events unfold. What might seem to be just some
adversity visited upon a person by mere chance might actually be an inflexion point. The path
chosen in response might yield unimagined and wonderful results. As Rabbi Akiva

57
counseled[xxxiv], everything that occurs in this world is directed towards achieving some ultimate
good, even if it doesn’t appear that way, at the time. It is usually only after the fact that sometimes
unmistakable patterns can be recognized.

My father-in-law, of blessed memory, was a survivor of Auschwitz. He passed away a year ago
on Shabbat, Parshat Zachor. I remember him recounting how he was barely 15 at the time he
arrived at Auschwitz and became separated from his mother on a line. He saw a woman he knew
from his hometown on another line and he went to her. He asked if he could stay with her, but she
said no. She had two infants, one in each of her arms, and said she couldn’t care of him too. He
went back to the other line. In that fateful moment, his life was saved. Unknowingly, he had
wandered from the line where he might be selected for work to the one slated for the gas chambers
and death; and, then, back again. His temporary disappointment at being rejected was ultimately
rewarded with life. He next encountered the evil Dr. Mengele, who marveled at his blue eyes and
selected him for work and life. A German soldier took charge of the group and asked who a cook
was. My father-in-law and his uncle were the only two not to answer in the affirmative. The soldier
concluded they must be the only ones actually qualified and they were assigned kitchen duty. This
saved him and many in his bunk for whom he was able to obtain some rations.

When he returned home, after the war, he experienced further pain. His father had been killed in a
labor camp and his mother had remarried. There was no longer any place for him at home and he
was forced to leave. He was devastated by this turn of events, but undaunted, he set out for Israel.
He was intercepted by the British and interned in Cyprus. He eventually reached Israel in 1948, in
time to fight in the War of Independence. He then met my mother-in-law, married, became a
policeman, had children, fought in the 1956 war and then came to the US with his family. Had he
stayed home, he would have been stuck behind the iron curtain. Who knows what his life might
have been?

My father, of blessed memory, was also a survivor of Auschwitz. He passed away on Purim,
twenty-five years ago. His miraculous survival, life and philosophy testify to the to the undeniable
influence of divine providence. While his arm was indelibly tattooed with his Auschwitz identity
number, he didn’t let it, or the inhuman treatment he was subjected to in the camps, define him.
He focused his energy on what could be done in the present, in order to assure a better future.
Victimhood had no place in his life and there were no excuses for doing anything less than our
best. His legacy was one of accomplishment, not maudlin self-pity. He inspired us to work hard to
achieve and imbued us with the strength to overcome challenges. His guiding principle was to
have faith in G-d and never give up.

Both my father Z”L and father-in-law Z”L overcame what otherwise appeared to be
insurmountable challenges; built meaningful lives and lovely families; and, thank G-d,
experienced the blessings of what my father would often refer to as Yiddishe Nachas.

The story of Megillat Esther is an integral part of all our lives and its message resonates. Our very
existence after thousands of years of persecution and the horror of the Holocaust is proof of the

58
power of divine providence. It is no random or chance occurrence that the Jewish people survive
and prosper and we are witness to the miracle of Israel being rebuilt before our very eyes.

Purim is a holiday that serves to negate Amalek’s philosophy of a mundane world animated only
by chance; bereft of true meaning and a higher purpose. Purim celebrates the Jewish view of a
world permeated by divine providence, where the good deeds people perform genuinely matter.
Join in the festivities at a public reading of the Megillah. As is our tradition, send Shelach Manot
to friends and give Matanot L’Evyonim to those in need. Enjoy a Purim Seudah with family and
friends, knowing you have made others happy, as well. Purim Sameach.

[i] See BT Megillah 11a.

[ii] See Esther Rabbah 3:14 and BT Megillah 12b.
[iii] Esther 1:3.
[iv] See Esther Rabbah, Petichta 8.
[v] Esther 1:16 and see BT Megillah 12b.
[vi] This elegant précis of this theme in the Megillah was presented by Rabbi Steven Weil, in his Shabbat Drasha, at the recent
AIPAC Policy Conference, attended by the author.
[vii] Esther 7:8-10 and see also Esther Rabbah, Petichta 8.
[viii] Esther 3:1 and see Esther Rabbah 10:13 and Mechilta D’Rabbi Yishmael 17:14, as well as, Malbim commentary on Esther
9:24.
[ix] Pesikta Rabbati 13:1.
[x] Esther 3:8-9 and see Esther Rabbah 7:12.
[xi] BT Megillah 13b.
[xii] See, for example, Sifrie Devarim 296, Rashi commentary on Deuteronomy 25:18 and Haemek Davar commentary
on Exodus 17:14.
[xiii] Esther 4:14.
[xiv] Esther Rabbah 8:6.
[xv] Rashi commentary on Esther 4:14.
[xvi] See Esther 3:2, which describes how Haman cast lots (Pur) to determine the date. See also Rashi commentary thereon.
[xvii] Esther 9:1-10.
[xviii] BT Megillah 16b.
[xix] Esther 9:11-12.
[xx] Interestingly, he does not qualify his offer with the condition of only up to half his kingdom as he did in Esther 5:3.
As BT Megillah 15b explains, the qualifier was intended to limit her ability to ask for the Temple to be rebuilt (see Maharsha
commentary thereon). See also Rashi commentary on Esther 5:3, where he notes that Achasverosh had discontinued the work on
the Temple, originally authorized by Cyrus.
[xxi] This insightful question and the comparison of the text cited in Nehemiah to that in Esther was presented by Rabbi Dr. Ari
Berman, the President of YU, at the recent AIPAC Policy Conference Shabbaton, attended by the author.
[xxii] See Nehemiah 2:1-6.
[xxiii] Yaarot Dvash I 17:7.
[xxiv] BT Sanhedrin 20b and see Rashi commentary thereon.
[xxv] See Esther Rabbah 10:12 and Pirke D’Rabbi Eliezer 50:12.
[xxvi] Pirke D’Rabbi Eliezer 50:11, which notes Haman had a total of forty sons.
[xxvii] Esther 9:7-10.
[xxviii] SeeRalbag commentary on Esther 9:13.
[xxix] See Mabim commentary on Esther 9:13. He notes that Shushan was divided into two sections, comprised of the part
known as Shushan HaBirah (the Capital), where the King and his ministers were situated and the regular city of Shushan.
[xxx] Malbim commentary on Nehemiah 2:6.
[xxxi] Ibid.
[xxxii] See also Rashi commentary on Daniel 5:2, which notes the word Shagaltah means the queen in the Aramaic language like
the word Shagal used in Nehemiah 2:6.
[xxxiii] As BT Megillah 15b notes, this was not something Achasverosh was willing to do and according to the Yarot Dvash it
was as yet premature, as discussed above.
[xxxiv] BT Brachot 60b.

59
 Esther before Ahasuerus, Jan Boeckhorst (1605–68)

Delving into the Megila

Rabbi Yehudah Steinberg writes:19

‫ ַהֹמֵּל] ֵמֹהדּוּ‬,‫ הוּא ֲאַחְשֵׁורוֹשׁ‬:‫ ִבּיֵמי ֲאַחְשֵׁורוֹשׁ‬,‫א ַו ְיִהי‬ 1 Now it came to pass in the days of
.‫ ְמִדיָנה‬,‫ֶשַׁבע ְוֶﬠְשׂ ִרים וֵּמָאה‬--‫כּוּשׁ‬-‫ְוַﬠד‬ Ahasuerus--this is Ahasuerus who reigned,
from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred
and seven and twenty provinces--

IT HAPPENED IN THE DAYS OF ACHASHVEROSH – HE IS [THE SAME]

ACHASHVEROSH.

The verse is seemingly repetitive. Isn’t obvious that Achashverosh is Achashverosh? Rashi
answers that the verse is telling us that Achashverosh remained the same wicked Achashverosh
from the beginning of this story until the end. 1 Therefore, the verse says, “It is the same
Achashverosh from beginning to end.” These few words contain one of the most important keys
to understanding the story of the Megillah.

While reading the Megillah, we seem to see two completely different Achashveroshes.

19
https://torah.org/learning/yomtov-purim-megila1/

60
The first Achashverosh agrees – without even the smallest justification or provocation – to have
the entire Klal Yisrael annihilated. He even refuses remuneration for this because he is overjoyed
with the proposition. Toward the end of the Megillah, however, a second kind of Achashverosh
surfaces. This one sends official letters to help save Klal Yisrael and gives them permission to
retaliate against their enemies. He appoints Mordechai his deputy and has Haman and his sons
hung.

One may mistakenly conclude that Achashverosh really changed and that it was as if there were
two Achashveroshes – that is, he started out as an evil king and later repented and became
righteous. Even though it is very rare that such a wicked king would repent, it is not impossible.
Would this idea of “two” kings be true, it would actually minimize the marvel of the miracle, for
then the entire story hinges upon the repentance of one wicked king. The Megillah therefore tells
us – in the very first verse – that Achashverosh is the same Achashverosh from beginning to the
end – an evil king and Jew-hater he started out, and so he remained.

The channel for Klal Yisrael’s salvation was far more complicated and far more wondrous. A chain
of what originally seemed random events, but later became clear as the hand of HaShem, forced
this extremely powerful and evil king into becoming a protector of a nation he truly hated. This is
both the depth and beauty of this miracle. It must be clear that since the Megillah was written
during Achashverosh’s reign, while he was pretending to love Klal Yisrael, his wickedness could
not be stated clearly. Chazal, who came much later and were able to tell us the unvarnished truth
about Achashverosh, relate that he hated Klal Yisrael as much as Haman did and was just as happy
to annihilate them. The Megillah’s subtle wording made the facts accessible to Klal Yisrael without
Achashverosh realizing.

Achashverosh’s own name bespeaks his wickedness, explain Chazal. Achashverosh (‫)אחשוורוש‬
means “the brother of the one referred to as rosh,” 2 i.e., Nevuchadnetzar. Both were equally
wicked. 3 Nevuchadnetzar destroyed the Beis HaMikdash and Achashverosh stopped the
rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash (as explained later on this verse); Nevuchadnetzar killed a large
part of Klal Yisrael and Achashverosh wished to exterminate the entire nation. Chazal, who knew
the truth, saw that Achashverosh was as evil and wicked as the evil Nevuchadnetzar.

Rabbi Shlomo Brevda zt”l explains, based on the Vilna Gaon’s commentary, that this is the
meaning of the verse,4 “Atzas HaShem hi sokum – The scheme of HaShem will prevail.” When
HaShem synchronizes events so that a person – of his own volition – should act against his own
will without even realizing what he is doing, this is the greatness of HaShem’s plan.

Indeed, only HaShem’s plans prevail, while all human beings’ plans are constantly undergoing
changes – due to their own actions – and they remain utterly unaware of their part in the changes.5

Sources:
1. Based on the Gemara in Megillah 11a.
The Mishkanos Yaakov explains that Achashverosh first invites the Jewish nation to a banquet and then orders their annihilation.
As explained later (1:5), the purpose of the banquet was to cause the Jewish nation to sin. The verse teaches us that he remained
as wicked from the beginning until the end. Meaning, we should view his initial friendliness, his invitation to the banquet —

61
which was his way of prompting us to sin — with the same horror and shock as we view his desire to annihilate us. The danger of
those who cause us to sin should be no less horrifying than the threat of those who desire our annihilation. The two are equally
terrible evils.
2.The word Achashverosh (‫ )אחשוורוש‬can be read ‫ ¾ אח‬brother [of], ‫ ¾ ראש‬head. In Nevuchadnetzar’s famous dream, he saw an
idol being smashed into pieces. (See Daniel, Chapter 2.) Daniel explained to him that the idol represented many nations that Klal
Yisrael would ultimately conquer. The idol’s head represented Nevuchadnetzar’s kingdom of Bavel. This is why Nevuchadnetzar
is referred to as ‫ראש‬, the head.
3. Megillah 11a.
4. Yeshayahu 5:19.
5. An interesting example of this happened in recent history. About 70 years ago, the notorious Stalin ym”sh was the evil ruler of
the Soviet Union. He despised the Jewish people and sent many of them to Siberia at the beginning of World War II. Had these
Jews been “spared” the Siberian exile, they would have likely been killed by the Nazis ym”sh. The Germans’ methodical
extermination of our Jewish brethren killed many more than those who perished in the Siberian camps. And so, many of the Jews
that Stalin sent to Siberia at the beginning of World War II were saved from the Nazis through his evil schemes. An example of
this salvation can be found in the wonderful book Behind the Ice Curtain by Dina Gabel. It is interesting that HaShem effected a
salvation for some Jews even through the actions of such a wicked person.

Portrait of Handel, by Thomas Hudson (c. 1741)

62
 Esther (HWV 50) is an oratorio by George Frideric Handel. It is generally
acknowledged to be the first English oratorio. Handel set a libretto after
the Old Testament drama by Jean Racine. The work was originally composed
in 1718, but was heavily revised into a full oratorio in 1732.

Esther, a Jewish orphan, lived with her relative Mordecai, an advisor to King Ahaseurus of Persia.
Mordecai had discovered and prevented a conspiracy to assassinate the King. Ahaseurus, having
rejected his previous wife, selected Esther as his spouse. The Prime Minister, Haman, became
enraged when Mordecai refused to bow to him, Mordecai stating that he would bow only to his
God. The first version of "Esther" opens as Haman decides to order the extermination of all Jews
throughout the Persian empire as retaliation for Mordecai's insult to him.

The Jews, meanwhile, are celebrating Esther's accession as Queen of Persia but their happiness
turns to mourning when they hear the news that the slaughter of all Jews has been ordered. Esther
asks Mordecai why he is displaying grief by being dressed in sackcloth and ashes and he tells her
the King has followed his Prime Minister's advice to order the extermination of the Jews. He asks
Esther to appeal to her husband to rescind the order, but she explains that it is forbidden upon pain
of death to approach the King without being sent for. She decides to take this risk anyway and
goes to see the King, who pardons her breach of protocol in approaching him without invitation
and offers to grant any petition she asks.

Esther only requests that the King and Haman will attend a banquet hosted by herself. At the
dinner, Esther reminds the King that Mordecai had saved his life and reveals her Jewish origin.
She tells the King that the order to exterminate the Jews is directed against Mordecai and herself.
Haman had prepared a gallows on which to hang Mordecai, but the King orders Haman himself to
be executed there. The Jews give thanks to God for their deliverance.

63
 London King's Theatre Haymarket, where the 1732 version of Handel’s
"Esther" was first performed

Oratorio (1732)

By 1731, Handel had spent more than ten years composing Italian operas for London and
presenting seasons of his operas at London theatres.
There was no system of royalties or copyright at that time, and a copy of the score of Esther having
been obtained, the 1720 version was performed, apparently in a staged version, by boy singers of
the Chapel Royal at the Crown and Anchor tavern, a popular venue for music, and was very
successful.

64
A member of the Royal Family asked Handel to present Esther at the theatre where his operas
were performed, but the Bishop of London, Edmund Gibson, would not permit Biblical stories to
be acted out upon the stage. Therefore, Handel decided to present Esther in concert form as an
addition to the 1732 opera season, with the singers currently appearing in the Italian operas but no
scenery or stage action, and in a revised three-act form with additional text by Samuel Humphreys.
The work was extremely popular and thus the form of the English oratorio was invented, almost
by accident.

Original playbill for Handel's oratorio "Esther" 1732

The coronation anthems Handel had written for the coronation of George II in 1727, with their
large orchestra and massed choruses, had made a huge impact, and the playbills advertising the
1732 performances of Esther said "The music will be disposed after the manner of the Coronation
Service". Handel's Italian operas laid overwhelming emphasis on solo arias for the star singers,
with no extra choruses, while for the revision of Esther, the coronation anthems "My Heart is
Inditing" and a version of "Zadok the Priest" were added.

65
Their large choruses and grandiose orchestral effects with trumpets and drums were very different
from what London audiences had experienced in Handel's Italian operas. Esther was very
successful, Handel revived the work in many subsequent London seasons, and it proved the
prototype for a long succession of similar dramatic oratorios in English by the composer.

Esther, Hugo Weisgall’s tenth, last, and grandest opera, with a libretto by Charles Kondek, is
based on the biblical Book of Esther.20 In many respects it was Weisgall’s crowning achievement
both artistically and in terms of public and critical recognition. It was commissioned originally by
Terrence McEwen and the San Francisco Opera in the mid 1980s, and preparations for a premiere
began with elaborate piano workshops, a major celebration of the announcement, and a press event.

But Lotfi Mansouri, who took over the reins of the company from McEwen before further
preparations for Esther were implemented, canceled the project in 1990, citing severe budgetary
problems—especially in view of the high cost of mounting so large-scale a work, which had eleven

20
https://www.milkenarchive.org/music/volumes/view/heroes-and-heroines/work/esther/

66
major roles, two choruses requiring substantial rehearsal of their imposing and challenging music,
and ballet.

As well, a production that would do justice to this opera required expensive stage designs and sets.
Weisgall was devastated, and for a while he despaired of seeing a production come to fruition
during his lifetime.

Composer Hugo Weisgall

Christopher Keene and the New York City Opera, which had already produced two of
Weisgall’s operas, took over the project for a premiere as part of that company’s imaginative
World Premiere Festival in celebration of its fiftieth anniversary, in 1993.

The Book of Esther (m’gillat ester; lit., scroll of Esther) concerns the imminent genocide of
the Jewish people in the ancient Persian Empire, a triumphant, nearly last-minute reprieve
through the intercession of the queen, and victory over its tormentors and would-be murderers.

Even viewed purely as literature, apart from any historical, theological, archaeological, or other
scientific considerations, the Book of Esther is in some ways a loosely drawn synopsis or
sketch, akin to a parable not only in content but in form. It is missing, perhaps intentionally,
many pieces of basic information, which raises unanswerable questions at every turn. On its
own merits—viz., without rabbinical commentary— it can betray both Judaic incongruities
and other gaps, as well as implausible military situations, all inviting a degree of imagination
along with reasoned interpretation and literary criticism.

67
 For example, since Mordecai is portrayed as a proud and God-fearing Jew, why would he even
acquiesce in Esther’s abandoning her Jewish heritage and obligations in order to become the
queen—before knowing anything about her potential value as an intermediary? How could she
live in the royal palace without violating commandments such as the Jewish dietary laws and
the Sabbath? Or can this possibly suggest that Mordecai might have known secretly—in
advance of Haman’s plot—that the Jews were already facing serious danger throughout the
empire in terms of public attitudes toward them, and that eventually an embedded intercessor
such as Esther might be their only hope.

The only hint in the text concerning perceptions of the Jews is Haman’s explanation to the king
that everywhere in the empire the Jews “have their own laws,” which might suggest popular
resentment. But later the Jews do find it strategically necessary to defend themselves and
ensure their security by military or paramilitary engagements—obviously with the assistance
of imperial and local armed forces acting on the instruction contained in Mordecai’s edict with
the king’s stamp. Since nowhere in the empire could the Jews have had their own army,
Ahasuerus’ instructions include arming them. And those engagements result in the deaths of
no fewer than 75,000 adversaries outside Shushan.

Does this in any way suggest local populations foaming beneath the surface with combustible
hatred for the Jews, which Haman had only to ignite—not unlike the Germans vis-à-vis segments
of Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, and other eastern European populations during (and lingering
even after) the Second World War?

How else to explain the accepted necessity from Jewish perspectives in the narrative of so costly
a victory at the expense of civilians? Clearly, the text implies no out-of-control vengeance or
bloodthirsty rampage (or “disproportionate response,” to borrow from misapplied and misguided
21st-century contemporary usage). To the contrary, the text emphasizes that the Jews declined
their rights—according to the king’s edict—to enrich themselves by taking the property of their
vanquished foes as the spoils of war. Inasmuch as Jews participated in the defensive military
action, it would have been impossible for them to have suffered no casualties, yet the text seems
to suggest just such a tactically untenable proposition, since none are mentioned.

And why—notwithstanding later kabbalistic and Hassidic literature that interprets God in the story
as active “behind the scenes,” unlike His direct and visible intervention in the Exodus narrative—
is there no religious element? There are no prayers of petition (not even by Mordecai), no
resolutions of faith in God’s protection, and no prayers of thanksgiving upon victory. Or does the
fasting, rending of garments, and donning of sackcloth and ashes imply accompanying appeals to
God through prayer? Are these cited as symbolic acts not only of mourning, but of repentance?

Naturally, Aggadic and Midrashic literature, in the context of its didactic explanations by way of
legends and other embellishments, sought to mediate some of these issues by reading into,
inferring from, and superimposing onto the story various religious parameters. For example, one
source proposes that the three fast days for Esther encompassed the first day of Passover, about
which, upon Mordecai’s objection, she replied that without the priority of the Jewish people’s
survival (to which the fasting was related), Passover would have neither meaning nor existence

68
(Esth 4:16). Another source understands Esther’s concealment of her identity as a means of
precluding the Jews’ neglect of prayer on complacent grounds that they were safe with one of their
own in the king’s palace.

There was some initial rabbinic resistance to the canonization of the Book of Esther as part of the
Bible, and the Talmud reflects concerns about whether the book demonstrates sufficient divine
inspiration in its writing (Meg. 7a). In addition to its lack of divine references, there was also
concern in some quarters over its aggressive and militant tone, which some feared might encourage
ill will. Ultimately, the advocates on its behalf prevailed, and the Book of Esther was included in
the Hebrew Bible as part of the section known as the k’tuvim (sacred writings), or the Hagiographa.

Ahasuerus is often identified as the historical Xerxes (I), who reigned from 486 to 456 B.C.E., and
whose name is thought to represent the Greek rendering of the Persian king or emperor’s name. In
that case the name Ahasuerus could be simply the Hebrew form of the Persian. A tablet discovered
at Borsippa from around the time of Xerxes refers to a royal official named Marduka.

However, neither the equation of Ahasuerus with Xerxes nor the historicity of the Book of Esther,
both of which present chronological, historical, and comparative theological problems, is
universally accepted in the world of biblical scholarship—even though many acknowledge that
the book’s author(s) may have drawn on historical events. Among various hypotheses and
conjectures emanating from various schools of objective biblical criticism as well as research are
proposals that Esther and Mordecai are derived from the Babylonian deities Ishtar and Marduk;
that the origin of the story lies in a quintessential oriental or Near Eastern romance pattern, with
two originally independent plots—a harem and a court intrigue; that Ahasuerus’ historical identity
is actually that of Ptolemy Euergetes II (reigned 170–164 and 145–117 B.C.E.), and that Esther
represents Cleopatra III; and that the author of Esther invented the narrative to accommodate an
already existing seasonal festival of a type common in antiquity, in which fictional or mock combat
between good and evil sides was accompanied by entertainments that included the telling of stories
similar in general contour to parts of the Book of Esther.

69
 Esther by John Everett Millais

Weisgall’s opera added to a long tradition of musical expression of the Book of Esther, in whole
or in part, that includes numerous works composed over the past six centuries. Haman is thought
to be represented in an early 14th-century motet. Palestrina wrote a five-voice motet, Quid habes
Hester (1575), for which the text draws on the dialogue between Esther and Ahasuerus as presented
in apocryphal additions to the Book of Esther. Among 17th- and early-18th-century works are
Stradella’s oratorio Ester, liberatrice dell’ popolo ebrae (ca. 1670); M. A. Charpentier’s Historia
Esther; G. Legrenzi’s oratorio Gli sponsali d’Ester (1676); and J. B. Moreau’s choral supplements
to Racine’s play Esther. Handel’s oratorio Esther (1732), still performed today, had its origins in
his earlier masque Haman and Mordecai, with a text by John Arbuthnot, perhaps together, as some
musicologists maintain, with Alexander Pope. Based on Racine’s drama, the earlier work,
Handel’s first oratorio-type work in English, was first performed at the palace of the Duke of
Chandos in 1720. The full oratorio, with additional text by Samuel Humphreys, was introduced on
the stage of the King’s Theater, and its libretto was translated into Hebrew by the Venetian rabbi

70
Jacob Raphael Saraval (1707–82). Later in the 18th century, von Dittersdorf wrote his oratorio La
liberatrice del popoplo giudaico nella Persia o sia l’Esther (1773).

In the 19th century there were operatic versions of the Esther story, and Eugen D’Albert wrote an
overture to Grillparzer’s play Esther (1888). Productions of Racine’s play at the Comédie
Française invited contributions of incidental choral music by several now forgotten composers.
But the most important operatic work prior to Weisgall’s is probably Darius Milhaud’s Esther de
Carpentras (1925–27), which draws on an old purimspiel (Purim play) from his native Provence,
concerning a local bishop in Carpentras intent on converting Jews. Jan Meyerowitz (1913–98) also
wrote an opera, Esther (1956), with a libretto by the American poet Langston Hughes, as well as
an orchestral tone poem, Midrash Esther, which was recorded for the first time by the Milken
Archive. In the “lighter” realm there are also many works, including Abraham Goldfaden’s
Yiddish musical Kenig akhashverosh (ca. 1885), one of his least-known Yiddish theatrical works,
and Israeli popular composer Dov Seltzer’s music for Itzik Manger’s Yiddish production Di
megila.

For dramatic effect in the opera, in which Ahasuerus is assumed to be the historical Xerxes in the
capital city of Susa, Weisgall and Kondek took many liberties with the biblical account.
Their Esther is not claimed as a faithful reenactment of the biblical story, but as a work of art based
upon it. Characters are fleshed out in appropriately multidimensional human terms; details of plot
and setting are filled in but sometimes changed altogether; motivations are explored; and parallels
are drawn to contemporary issues and concerns—especially Jewish identity in modern society and
moral reflections arising out of post–World War II sensibilities with regard to defensive war for
national survival. The triumphant spirit in the biblical narrative is deliberately muted as well as
complicated, and the opera opens as well as closes with a chilling scene in which eleven bodies of
hanged men are suspended above a grave digger, with Esther, disguised beneath a hood, hovering
in the background.

In the opera, Esther is portrayed as far less sympathetic at first than in the biblical narrative. When
Mordecai initially implores her to intercede for her people, she seems to represent the stereotypical
overly as well as negatively assimilated Jew in modern perceptions. Not only convinced that
maintaining the secret of her own Jewish ancestry will permanently ensure her safety, but she also
seems to have removed herself in her own mind from her people altogether, feeling little of the
kinship upon which Mordecai is counting. “No longer!” she replies to Mordecai’s reminder that
she is still a Jew (“You are one of us!”). “I live in a different way as queen than I did with you.”

Weisgall and Kondek’s Esther—before the spiritual growth and recovery of her better self that
they seek to establish and develop onstage—is, at that moment, eerily reminiscent of those Jews
in the modern era who declined to jeopardize newfound social status in a non-Jewish world,
completely disassociating with their past, and who are now generally criticized if not condemned.
As events of the 20th century have proved, their masks were ultimately futile anyway.

Esther now likes being queen, with all its advantages—even though the opera has altered the
circumstances surrounding her original candidacy. (In this libretto, following Midrashic
interpretation, she is mysteriously summoned against her and Mordecai’s wishes to join the group
of candidates. Although she resists at first, she complies only because Mordecai assures her

71
lamentably that there is no choice. This, of course, circumvents the difficult question of why
Mordecai would have cooperated in her abandoning Jewish life by becoming queen.) It is not only
that she fears approaching the king without an invitation, but she is not so ready to forfeit her
position by revealing her connection to the Jews—even to the respected Mordecai.

Her selfish attitude, however, is only superficial. She is soon genuinely conflicted, and that conflict
is played out during Act II. “Who am I?” she asks repeatedly on second thought—of Mordecai,
and of herself. She realizes that while she has ignored her heritage, she cannot continue to repress
her bond with it and to abdicate her obligation to her people in its time of need. But her realization
requires the persuasion of a crowd representing the people, in addition to Mordecai. After insisting
that she can do no more than empathize, she ultimately acknowledges that “we are responsible,
each for the other.”

Seeking to explain and explore Haman’s motivations, Weisgall and Kondek have presented his
genocidal plan within the context of a larger goal that becomes an invented subplot involving his
wife, Zeresh. Together, at her constant encouragement, they are planning to stage a coup and
overthrow and murder the king so that Haman can assume the reins of power. Unlike in the biblical
account, Zeresh appears with Haman at the banquet, which he thinks is given in his honor (which,
in the opera, is a composite of the two separate banquets described in the Bible). There, they
converse gleefully about the sure success of their plot.

Indeed, the composer and librettist have carved out an added, quasi–Lady Macbeth role for
Zeresh—whose foundation in the biblical account may be found in the scene (5:13–14) where
Zeresh, together with Haman’s friends, advises him to relieve himself of the agony Mordecai
causes him by ordering Mordecai’s hanging. In the opera, her role is many times magnified, for it
is she who, in addition to being a coconspirator, incites Haman against the Jews and urges him not
to stop at Mordecai’s execution: “Do not act against him [Mordecai] alone, act against all of them,”
she tells him— partly in order to camouflage Mordecai’s execution, which might otherwise have
dangerous repercussions for Haman when it becomes known in the Jewish community. “His death
would be noticed,” Haman fears, suggesting that the king might be alerted to the role Mordecai
played in uncovering the earlier regicidal plot, and thus might blame Haman for his death. But
Haman’s momentary resistance to Zeresh’s advice about genocide is without foundation in the
biblical story, in which Haman is portrayed as the essence of evil who needs no encouragement.
In the opera, Zeresh plays on his ego for the sake of her own ambition, assuring him of immortality
in terms that, for late 20th-century audiences, might recall Holocaust and post-Holocaust rhetoric
such as the resolution proposed at the 1945 postwar Polish Peasant Party congress, posthumously
thanking Adolph Hitler—their defeated enemy, conqueror, and tormentor—for at least having
annihilated Polish Jewry, and urging that those Jews who might have survived be expelled.
(Although that resolution was neither voted on nor adopted, it was proposed to the tumultuous
applause of the more than 1,000 Polish delegates.) “To be remembered as the man who rid the
world of an insolent race ... you’ll achieve the greatness you deserve,” Zeresh promises.

Vashti, from whom we do not hear in the biblical narrative after her banishment, is a coconspirator
along with Zeresh and Haman in the opera’s subplot. From Zeresh’s communications with her,
Vashti believes that—once Haman takes over—she will be restored to court in some capacity. Yet
another new twist to the story comes with Vashti’s involvement in the earlier plot that Mordecai

72
uncovers in time to save the king’s life. In this new scenario, the two royal chamberlains and
plotters, Bigtan and Teresh, are fiercely devoted to the deposed Vashti, who tries to use them as
an instrument for her own revenge as well as a means to her return to court.

Perhaps the most glaring and politically charged editorial supplement to the biblical narrative
occurs subtly in Scene 10 of the third and final act, where Esther reflects with sadness on the fact
that the necessary defensive war, which occurred only as a result of her intercession, took tens of
thousands of enemy lives (including, it must be presumed, many so-called civilian casualties). Her
dampened enthusiasm for the victory—even as the triumph of survival—and her lament about the
necessity of her role may appear to come as a bit of political-historical revisionism in the tradition
of postwar amateur reconsiderations about Dresden or Hiroshima—or for that matter the equally
civilian-populated and equally deadly if not deadlier bombing of Tokyo or Berlin. But for anyone
who knew Hugo Weisgall personally, this would have been, if anything along those lines, a poke
at just such revisionist or pseudo-pacifist naïveté. Esther’s sadness does not necessarily question
the strategic wisdom of the campaign.

Yet this regretfulness of what was nonetheless necessary (“that that day [the thirteenth of Adar]
could not have been avoided fills me with regret ... so much blood, so many dead”) has solid roots
in Judaic tradition. Probably the most notable example is a Midrashic commentary on the death of
the Israelites’ Egyptian pursuers as the Sea of Reeds closed in on them and caused them to drown—
leaving the former slaves safe on dry land and free from bondage. According to that commentary,
the angels in heaven were about to break into jubilant song as the Egyptian hosts were drowning
in the sea, when God admonished them sternly: “My creatures [the Egyptians] are drowning in the
sea, and you want to sing?” The Passover seder reflects similar sensibilities in the pouring of a
drop of wine from the full cup at the mention of each of the “ten plagues,” a custom generally
explained as deliberately diminishing what would otherwise be unalloyed joy at Israel’s victorious
exodus, precisely because it entailed the suffering of others. And the Purim tradition of reading in
a single breath the names of all ten sons of Haman as they occur in the m’gillat ester—while its
derivation has been tied to demonstrating that they were executed at the same time—has also been
viewed as refraining from dwelling on them and thereby refusing to gloat over the death of
enemies.

73