Daf Ditty Megillah 12: Vashti’s Tail/Tale

Gustave Doré: Queen Vashti Refuses to Obey Ahasuerus' Command. 1866

1
The students of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai asked him: For what reason were the enemies of
Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves when exhibiting behavior that is
not in their best interests, in that generation deserving of annihilation? He, Rabbi Shimon, said
to them: Say the answer to your question yourselves. They said to him: It is because they
partook of the feast of that wicked one, Ahasuerus, and they partook there of forbidden foods.
Rabbi Shimon responded: If so, those in Shushan should have been killed as punishment, but
those in the rest of the world, who did not participate in the feast, should not have been killed.
They said to him: Then you say your response to our question. He said to them: It is because
they prostrated before the idol that Nebuchadnezzar had made, as is recorded that the entire
world bowed down before it, except for Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.

They said to him: But if it is true that they worshipped idols and therefore deserved to be
destroyed, why was a miracle performed on their behalf? Is there favoritism expressed by God
here? He said to them: They did not really worship the idol, but pretended to do so only for
appearance, acting as if they were carrying out the king’s command to bow before the idol. So
too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not destroy them but did act angry with them only for
appearance. He too merely pretended to desire to destroy them, as all He did was issue a threat,
but in the end the decree was annulled. And this is as it is written:

-‫ ַוַיֶּגּה ְבֵּני‬,‫לג ִכּי ל ֹא ִﬠָנּה ִמִלּבּוֹ‬ 33 For He doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children
{‫ }ס‬.‫ִאישׁ‬ of men. {S}
Lam 3:33

“For He does not afflict from His heart willingly” but only for appearances’ sake.

2
The verse states:

--‫ ָﬠְשָׂתה ִמְשֵׁתּה ָנִשׁים‬,‫ט ַגּם ַוְשִׁתּי ַהַמְּלָכּה‬ 9 Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women in
.‫ ֲאַחְשֵׁורוֹשׁ‬i‫ ַלֶמֶּל‬,‫ ֲאֶשׁר‬,‫ ַהַמְּלכוּת‬,‫ֵבּית‬ the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus.
Esther 1:9

“Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women, in the royal house, which belonged to
King Ahasuerus” The Gemara questions why she held the feast in the royal house, a place of
men, rather than in the women’s house, where it should have been. Rava said in response: The
two of them had sinful intentions. Ahasuerus wished to fornicate with the women, and Vashti
wished to fornicate with the men. This explains the folk saying that people say: He with
pumpkins and his wife

with zucchinis, indicating that often a man and his wife engage in similar actions.

The Gemara continues to detail what occurred at the feast. So too, at the feast of that wicked
man, Ahasuerus, when the men began to converse, some said: The Median women are the most
beautiful, while others said: The Persian women are the most beautiful. Ahasuerus said to
them: The vessel that I use, i.e., my wife, is neither Median nor Persian, but rather Chaldean.
Do you wish to see her? They said to him: Yes, provided that she be naked, for we wish to see
her without any additional adornments.

3
The Gemara comments: Vashti was punished in this humiliating way for it is with the measure
that a man measures to others that he himself is measured. In other words, God punishes
individuals in line with their transgressions, measure for measure. This teaches that the wicked
Vashti would take the daughters of Israel, and strip them naked, and make them work on
Shabbat. Therefore, it was decreed that she be brought before the king naked, on Shabbat. This is
as it is written:

-‫ ֲאַחְשֵׁורוֹשׁ‬v‫ ֲחַמת ַהֶמֶּל‬,v‫שׁ‬ֹ ‫ ְכּ‬,‫ ַהְדָּב ִרים ָהֵאֶלּה‬,‫א ַאַחר‬ 1 After these things, when the wrath of king
‫ ִנְגַזר‬-‫ ְוֵאת ֲאֶשׁר‬,‫ָﬠָשָׂתה‬-‫שׁר‬ֶ ‫ַוְשִׁתּי ְוֵאת ֲא‬-‫ָזַכר ֶאת‬- Ahasuerus was assuaged, he remembered
.‫ָﬠֶליָה‬ Vashti, and what she had done, and what
was decreed against her.
Esther 2:1

“After these things, when the wrath of King Ahasuerus was appeased, he remembered Vashti,
and what she had done, and what was decreed against her” That is to say, just as she had done
with the young Jewish women, so it was decreed upon her.

The verse states:

‫ ָלבוֹא ִבְּדַבר‬,‫ יב ַוְתָּמֵאן ַהַמְּלָכּה ַוְשִׁתּי‬12 But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king's
i‫ ְבַּיד ַהָסּ ִריִסים; ַו ִיְּקֹצף ַהֶמֶּל‬,‫ ֲאֶשׁר‬,i‫ ַהֶמֶּל‬commandment by the chamberlains; therefore was the king
{‫ }ס‬.‫ ַוֲחָמתוֹ ָבֲּﬠָרה בוֹ‬,‫ְמֹאד‬ very wroth, and his anger burned in him. {S}
Esther 1:12

4
 “But the queen Vashti refused to come” The Gemara asks: Since she was immodest, as the
Master said above: The two of them had sinful intentions, what is the reason that she did not
come? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: This teaches that she broke out in leprosy, and therefore
she was embarrassed to expose herself publicly. An alternative reason for her embarrassment was
taught in a baraita: The angel Gabriel came and fashioned her a tail.

Ben Yehoyada

Summary

Vashti and the Importance of Interpretation

As the rabbis continue to explain the Purim story by line and by word, their creativity is at the
forefront of my mind.1 They embellish the scroll’s words with stories that are sometimes so far-
fetched that I am shocked at their nerve. These interpretations are accepted as truth both because
of the status of our Sages. However, countless other side-stories could explain the words in the
Megilla. A great responsibility, to have one's interpretations taken as undisputed truth for
thousands of years.

Vashti has been a character with few words but many interpreters. In our daf, we are presented
with a specific view of Vashti: libidinous, cruel to the women – especially the Jewish women –
who serve her, vain, and likely being punished by G-d. Even though the text suggests that Vashti
is modest, for she does not wish to appear naked before the King and his guests, the rabbis find
reason to suggest otherwise. She developed leprosy just at that moment, perhaps. Or she grew a
tail and was embarrassed. Is it possible that Vashti was simply a woman who had some power but
ultimately was controlled by her King? According to our Sages, we should see Vashti as wicked,

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

5
which means sexual, willful, and hurtful. What do we learn about women from our rabbis'
interpretations of Vashti?

This desire to paint the characters in our history as “all good” or “all bad” is dangerous. I have
always learned that Judaism does not hide from the faults in our ancestors. But in many
circumstances – particularly with regard to ‘secondary’ players – and women are almost always
secondary players – we learn a two-dimensional interpretation of their characters.

When I think about the ways that we villainize those who fight against us today, it is easy to
recognize this pattern of thought. It is much easier to argue with a person who is perceived to be
‘different’ from us than to do the same with someone who is 'like us'. We apologize for those
whom we see as similar to us. We have compassion for them; we understand their motivations. To
paint a person - or a group of people - as wicked is a way of dehumanizing them. Once we have
set another apart from us, we can be sure that we will find little common ground.

The rabbis go on to describe both the ‘angels’ who are sitting with Achashverosh and the way in
which he begins to choose a new wife.

Rabbi Avrohom Adler writes:2

It is written in the Megillah [1:3]: The army of Persia and Media, the nobles and all the ministers
of the provinces in his service; and it is written [10:2] And the entire history of his power and
strength, and the account of Mordechai's greatness, whom the king had promoted, are recorded in
the Book of Chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia. Why in the first verse are nobles (a lesser
title) attached to Media and in the latter verse they are referred to as kings? Rava answered: They
made this agreement between them: When one from our nation will be king, the governors will be
from your nation, and if kings come from your nation, then the governors will come from our
nation.

It is written in the Megillah [1:4]: For many days, one hundred and eighty days, he displayed the
glorious wealth of his kingdom and the splendorous beauty of his majesty. Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina
states: This teaches us that Achashverosh wore the priestly garment by this feast. (12a) It is written
in the Megillah [1:5]: And when these days came to an end, the king made a seven-day feast in the
courtyard of the king's palace garden, for all the people in Shushan the capital, nobleman and
commoner alike. Rav and Samuel have the following dispute: One said that he was a wise king,
and the other said that he was a foolish king. The proof that he was a wise king is because he made
the feast first for his remote subjects since he could make a feast any time for his townsmen. The
proof that he was a fool is because it would have been logical to invite his townsmen first, so that
if others would rebel, at least his townsmen would defend him.

2 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Megillah_12.pdf

6
Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai's students asked: Why did the Jews of Persia deserve Haman's decree
of annihilation? He responded: You answer. They answered: It was because they benefited from
the feast of the wicked Achashverosh. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai asked them: If so, only those of
Shushan should have been included in the decree. Why were the rest of the Jews ordered to be
killed if they didn’t partake in the feast? They replied: You tell us. He answered them: It was
retribution for bowing to the statue which the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. The
students asked him: If they actually bowed to the statue, why did they merit to be saved? He replied
to them: They did not bow as a willful act of idol worship; they only superficially pretended to
bow in order to avoid being thrown into the fiery furnace. Hashem reciprocated by only staging a
threat of genocide in order to scare them into repenting.

It is written in the Megillah [1:5]: And when these days came to an end, the king made a seven-
day feast in the courtyard of the king's palace garden, for all the people in Shushan the capital,
nobleman and commoner alike. Rav and Samuel have the following dispute: One said that
everyone was placed in the location that was worthy for him; the court, garden, and king's palace.
The other one said that he first tried to place them in the court, but it could not contain them; he
then placed them in the garden, and it also could not accommodate them, until he placed them in
the king's palace. A braisa is cited: He placed them in the court from which two doors opened, one
into the garden and another into the palace.

The Gemora discusses the details of the feast, such as the hangings, tapestries, cushions, rods,
pillars and couches. Chur – Rav said that the tapestries had many holes (as they were made by
needlework), and Shmuel said that it is the white wool which he spread out for them. Karpas –
Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina said that these were cushions of fine wool. Al gelilei kesef v’amudei
sheish - The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Yehudah said: Silver couches for some and gold for
others;silver, for those who were worthy of silver, and gold for those who were worthy of gold.
Rabbi Nechemiah said to him: If that were so, there would have been jealousy at the banquet!
Rather,the couches themselves were of silver and their legs were made of gold. Bahat va’sheish -
Rav Assi said: There were stones (which the floor was paved with) that were much sought after
by their owners (but were difficult to obtain). V’dar v’sochares - Rav said: This means that there
were rows upon rows (of stones). Shmuel says: There is a precious stone in the seaports called
darah. Achasverosh put it in the midst of the banquet, and it lit up the place as it were midday. In
the school of Rabbi Yishmael it was taught: It means that he gave a remission of taxes to all
merchants.

It is written in the Megillah [1:7]: Drinks were served in golden vessels, vessels of assorted design.
Rava said that a heavenly voice proclaimed: Balshetzar and his company were killed because they
used the vessels of the Beis Hamikdosh and you are repeating their sin! (12a) It is written in the
Megillah [1:7]: and the royal wine was in abundance as befitting the king. Rav said: This teaches
us that every person was served wine which was older than him.

It is written in the Megillah [1:8]: and the drinking was according to the law. Rabbi Chanan said
in the name of Rabbi Meir: According to the law of the Torah. Just as according to the law of the
Torah the (quantity of) food exceeds the drink (such as by an olah offered on Rosh Chodesh; it
consists of one bull and three isronim of flour, which is considerably more than the one half-hin
of wine poured over the Altar); so in the feast of that wicked one there was more food than drink.

7
It is written in the Megillah [1:8]: Without coercion. Rabbi Elozar said: This teaches that each one
was given to drink from the wine of his own country. It is written in the Megillah [1:8]: That they
should do according to every man’s pleasure. Rava said: This means that they should do according
to the will of Mordechai and Haman. Mordechai is called ‘man,’ as it is written: A Jewish man;
and Haman, as it is written: a man, an adversary and an enemy.

It is written in the Megillah [1:9]: Queen Vashti, too, made a feast for the women in the royal
palace of King Achashverosh. Rava said that both Achashverosh and Vashti planned to commit
depraved acts. And this is consistent with the popular saying: He with big pumpkins and his wife
with small pumpkins.

It is written in the Megillah [1:9]: On the seventh day, when the king's heart was merry with wine.
The Gemora asks: Was his heart not merry with wine until then? Rava answers: The seventh day
was Shabbos, a day when the Jews would eat and drink and begin with discourse on the Torah and
with words of praise to Hashem. However, the idolaters when they eat and drink, they begin with
words of licentious matters. This transpired by the feast of Achashverosh as well. Some at the
party said that the Median women are the most beautiful, and others said that the Persian women
are the most beautiful. Achashverosh said to them: The vessel that I use is neither Median nor
Persian, but Chaldean and she is the most beautiful. Would you like to see her? They said: Yes,
but only if she will be naked. The Gemora proceeds to explain why Vashti had this coming to her
since man receives from Above measure for measure. The wicked Vashti was accustomed to taking
the daughters of Israel and strip them naked and force them to work on Shabbos. This explains
what is written in the Megillah later [2:1]: After these events, when King Achashverosh's wrath
had abated, he remembered Vashti and what she had done and what had been decreed upon her.
Just as she had done to the Jewish girls, so it was decreed against her.

The Megillah writes further [1:12]: But Queen Vashti refused to appear by the king's order brought
by the chamberlains. The Gemora asks: She was immodest and we learned before that Vashti
intended to act immorally. Why did she refuse? Rabbi Yosi ben Chanina said: This teaches that
leprosy broke out on her and she was too embarrassed to come. We learned in a braisa that the
angel Gavriel came and placed a tail on her. It is written in the Megillah [1:12]: And the king grew
furious and his wrath seethed within him. Why was he so enraged? Rava answers: She sent
Achashverosh a message: You were a stable boy for my father. My father drank wine equal to
what a thousand people drank and he did not get drunk, and you become senseless with much less
wine.

The Megillah writes further [1:13]: So the king conferred with the wise men, those knowledgeable
of the times, for this was the king's custom, to bring such issues before those who were versed in
every law and statute. The Gemora explains that these wise men were the Rabbis who knew how
to intercalate years and establish the months. Achashverosh requested that they should judge
Vashti. They said: What shall we do? If we tell him to put her to death, tomorrow he will become
sober again and he will require her from us and we will be held responsible. Shall we tell him to
let her go? This will cause disrespect for the royalty. They said to him: From the day that our Beis
Hamikdosh was destroyed and we were exiled from our land, we have lost the ability to provide
counsel and we do not know how to judge capital cases. Go to Ammon and Moab who have
remained in their places, like wine that sits on its sediment, and let them judge her. He immediately

8
heeded their advice and called other advisors as is written in the Megillah [1:14] Those closest to
him were Carshena, Sheisar, Admasa, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena and Memuchan. Rabbi Levi said:
Every name in this verse contains a reference to the sacrifices. Carshena: the ministering angels
said to Hashem: Sovereign of the Universe, did they ever offer before you lambs of the first year
(karim bnei shanah) as the Jews offered before You? Sheisar: Did they ever offer before You two
pigeons (shtei torim)? Admasa: Did they ever build before You an altar of earth (adamah)]?
Tarshish: Did they ever minister before You in the priestly garments (tarshish is one of the stones
that was on the breastplate of the Kohen Gadol)? Meres: Did they ever stir (meres) the blood of a
sacrifice before You? Marsena: did they ever stir (meres) the mealofferings before You?
Memuchan: Did they ever prepare (muchan) a table before You?

It is written [1:16]: Memuchan declared before the king and the ministers. The Gemora states that
Memuchan is Haman, and he was called Memuchan because he was destined for punishment. Rav
Kahana said: From here we see that an ordinary man (by the fact that he was mentioned last, it is
obvious that he was the least important amongst them) always pushes himself in front. (12b) The
Megillah writes [1:22]: He sent letters to all the king's provinces, to each province in its script and
to each nation in its language, stating that every man shall be master in his home and that he speak
the language of his nation. Rava said: If not for these first letters, there would have been left no
shred or remnant of the enemies of Israel (a euphemism for the Jewish people). People said: What
is the meaning of sending us a decree that every man should be the ruler in his own house? Of
course he should! Even a weaver must be the authority in his own house! They decided that if this
decree is foolish, other decrees are foolish as well and that is why they didn’t listen to the decree
of killing the Jews.

It is written in the Megillah [2:3]: And let the king appoint officers. Rav said: What is the meaning
of the verse: Every prudent man acts with forethought, but a fool unfolds his folly? ‘Every prudent
man acts with forethought’: this applies to David, of whom, it is written: And his servants said to
him, “Let Them seek for my master the king a young maiden.” Everyone who had a daughter
brought her. ‘But a fool unfolds his folly’: this applies to Achashverosh, of whom it is written: and
let the king appoint officers. Whoever had a daughter hid her. It is written in the Megillah [2:5]:
There was a Jewish man in Shushan the capital, whose name was Mordechai, son of Yair, son of
Shimei, son of Kish, from the tribe of Binyamin. The Gemora asks: What is the significance in
mentioning all these names? The Gemora cites a braisa which states that all these names are in fact
referring To Mordechai. He is called the son of Yair because he brightened the eyes of the Jewish
people in prayer. He is referred to as the son of Shimei because Hashem listened to his prayers. He
is called the son of Kish because he knocked on the Gates of Mercy and they were opened for him.

HASHEM WANTS OUR TEFILLOS

It is written in the Megillah [2:5]: There was a Jewish man in Shushan the capital, whose name
was Mordechai, son of Yair, son of Shimei, son of Kish, from the tribe of Binyamin. The Gemora
asks: What is the significance in mentioning all these names? The Gemora cites a braisa which
states that all these names are in fact referring To Mordechai. He is called the son of Yair because
he brightened the eyes of the Jewish people in prayer. He is referred to as the son of Shimei because
Hashem listened to his prayers. He is called the son of Kish because he knocked on the Gates of
Mercy and they were opened for him.

9
The Shem Meshmuel asks: According to this explanation, the phrases are seemingly in reverse
order. First, one knocks on the Gates of Mercy, then Hashem would listen to his prayers and
afterwards he would brighten the eyes of Klal Yisroel.

Rabbi Eliezer Ginzburg in his sefer, The King’s Treasures cites an important principle that was
often said by the Mirrer Mashgiach, Reb Yerucham Levovitz. The Medrash in Parshas Beshalach
(61:5) states: Why did Hashem scare the Jewish people? The Medrash answers: Because Hashem
desired their prayers. The Medrash is teaching us that the primary purpose behind the Splitting of
the Sea was to stir Klal Yisroel to prayer. Chazal (Yevamos 64) tell us that Hashem desires the
prayers of the righteous. The Matriarchs were barren only so that they should pray to Hashem for
children. Their desire for progeny caused the Matriarchs and the Patriarchs to pray to Hashem at a
level that under normal circumstances they would not have done. This can be said in regard to the
hardships that happened to the Jewish people in Shushan. It was to chase away the spiritual gloom
that comes with exile and to brighten the eyes of Klal Yisroel through tefillah. The phrases are
thus arranged in levels of importance.

WHY WERE THE JEWS DESERVING OF PUNISHMENT?

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:

The students of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai suggested that the Jewish people were threatened with
annihilation in the times of Haman because they sinned by partaking of the banquet of
Achashverosh. Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai asked that if this was the cause for being punished with
such a threat, why were the people outside of Shushan -- who did not partake of the banquet -- also
threatened with annihilation? Rather, Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai explained that the Jewish people
were punished because they bowed down to an idol during the reign of Nevuchadnetzar. His
students countered that if that was their sin, why did they deserve to be saved through a miracle in
the times of Purim? Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai answered that since they did not actually worship
the idol but merely made it look as though they were worshipping it (in order to avoid harsh
repercussions), Hash-m punished them by merely making it look as though they were going to be
destroyed.

Why did the students ask this question only on the explanation of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai? Even
according to their own explanation (that the people sinned by partaking of the banquet of
Achashverosh), the Jews did not deserve to be saved.

Moreover, what was the basis for their question in the first place? Perhaps the Jewish people
repented and that is why they deserved to be saved. Genuine Teshuvah saves the sinner even if he
actually sinned, and certainly when he merely gave the appearance of sinning.

10
(a) RAV TZVI ELIMELECH of Dinov (in REI'ACH DUDA'IM) explains that when a person
sins his form of repentance must correspond to the sin he committed. In the case of Purim, the
Jewish people repented by fasting for three days. If their sin was that they participated in the feast
of Achashverosh, it is logical that they repented by fasting for three days. They were saved as a
result of their repentance. However, if they sinned by bowing down to an idol, repentance by
fasting would not have corresponded to their sin and would not have been a proper form of
Teshuvah, and the people would not have deserved to be saved. For this reason, the students of
Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai did not accept his explanation of how the people sinned.

(b) Another answer may be suggested based on the commentary of the VILNA GA'ON and others
(see ABARBANEL, YOSEF OMETZ, MALBIM) on the verses in Esther (3:12-14) which
describe the messages that Haman sent to all parts of the empire. The first verse (v. 12) relates that
Haman sent letters to the Achashdarpenim (satraps) of the king and to the Pachos (governors) of
each province. In this letter, Haman wrote that they should destroy all of the Jews on the thirteenth
day of the twelfth month (v. 13). The verse (v. 14) then repeats that a "synopsis of the writing was
to be given out as a decree in every province, [it was to be] revealed to all the peoples that they
should be ready for that day."

The verses imply that Haman sent two different letters -- one to the rulers and another one to all
of the people. What were the contents of these two different letters?

The commentators explain that Haman was afraid to send an open letter -- for all to read -- with a
proclamation that the Jews should be killed on the thirteenth of Adar, because such a public
announcement would warn the Jews to his intentions and enable them to find some way to thwart
his plan. He therefore sent a detailed letter only to the rulers of each province, telling them that
the Jews were to be killed on the thirteenth of Adar, and that the plan should be kept secret until
that day. However, he also needed to notify the population at large to prepare for battle, since they
could not be notified at the last minute in a kingdom as large as Persia. He therefore sent out a
public letter, warning all of the people to be prepared for battle on the thirteenth of Adar and to
attack whomever the leaders tell them to attack. The Megilah calls the first letter the "Devar
ha'Melech" ("the [private] word of the king"), and it calls the second letter the "Das ha'Melech"
("the decree of the king").

This explains why the verse later (4:3) says that "in every province -- wherever the word of the
king and his decree reached -- there was great mourning for the Jews." Why does the verse say,
"in every province -- wherever the word of the king... reached"? It should say, "in all provinces,
there was great mourning for the Jews." The answer is that in many provinces of the empire, the
Jews were not in mourning because they did not know what the confidential "Devar ha'Melech"
said, and they had no idea who was going to be attacked. Only in specific provinces, where Jews
held positions of prominence and were privy to the classified information contained in the "Devar
ha'Melech," did the Jews mourn because they knew about the terrifying contents of the "Devar
ha'Melech" as well as the "Das ha'Melech." When Esther begged the king to rescind the decree, he
allowed her to send out a new proclamation to replace the first letter; the new proclamation
declared that the people should battle and destroy not the Jewish people, but the people of Amalek.
According to this explanation, the Jews outside of Shushan were not aware of the edict to kill the
Jews, and thus they obviously did not know that they needed to repent for any sin. The people in

11
Shushan, however, found out about the contents of the edict through Mordechai, and thus they
embarked on a major campaign of Teshuvah.

This was the question of the students of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai: if the Jews were being punished
because they participated in the banquet of Achashverosh, then only the Jews in Shushan deserved
to be killed. They were spared because they repented. Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai asked that the sin
of participating in the banquet could not have been the cause for the threat to the Jews outside of
Shushan (who were also threatened with destruction), for they did not participate in the banquet.
It must be that the threat of destruction was a punishment for all of the Jews from all of the
provinces for their sin of bowing down to the idol in the times of Nevuchadnetzar. However, since
they committed that sin only out of fear and not with genuine intent to worship the idol, Hash-m
punished them by merely frightening them; He never intended to carry out the threat and let them
be killed.

"MEMUCHAN" IS HAMAN WHO IS "PREPARED FOR PUNISHMENT"

The Gemara says that the name "Memuchan" in Megilas Esther refers to Haman who was "Muchan
l'Pur'anos" (prepared, or destined, for punishments).

(a) How does the name "Memuchan" imply punishments?

(b) If Haman was "prepared for punishments," he should have been called "Muchan" and not
"Memuchan." What is the point of the extra letter "Mem"?

The Gemara in Chagigah (12b) relates that there are seven firmaments, each of which serves a
different purpose. The sixth firmament is called "Mechon" and contains the elements of destructive
weather which Hash-m sends to the world when necessary. RASHI there explains that the word
"Mechon" means "prepared for punishment," as the verse says, "Nachonu la'Letzim Shefatim" --
"Punishments are prepared for the scoffers" (Mishlei 19:29). This verse is evidently the source for
the Gemara here which says that "Memuchan" implies punishments.

RABEINU BACHYE (Bereishis 36:12) writes that the Name of Hash-m which has the power to
defeat Amalek is the Name of forty letters. Thus, Haman was called "Memuchan" -- "Muchan"
because he was prepared for punishment, and "Memuchan" because it is the Holy Name of forty
letters (the Gematriya of Mem is forty) which would bring about that punishment.

The number forty is mentioned in several places in the context of Haman's defeat. The Midrash
states that the pole upon which Haman was hanged was fifty Amos high, but ten Amos were
embedded into the ground, and thus Haman's body was suspended forty Amos above the ground.
The Targum (Esther 9:14) says that the bodies of Haman and his sons, who were hanged one after
the other, occupied forty cubits of the fifty-cubit pole. In that sense Haman indeed was "punished"
by the number forty (the forty cubits of the pole).

12
In addition, the Targum Sheni (an Aramaic Midrash on Megilas Esther; 2:5) says that Mordechai
was exactly the fortieth generation after Yakov Avinu. Hence, Mordechai and his generation were
the "forty" that struck Haman.

MORDECHAI'S POWER OF PRAYER

The Gemara teaches that all of the words which the Megilah uses to describe Mordechai (Esther
2:5) refer to his power of prayer. He was called "Ben Ya'ir" because he was the son (Ben) who lit
up (Ya'ir) the eyes of the Jews with his prayers. He was called "Ben Shim'i" because he was the
son (Ben) to whom Hash-m listened (Shama) when he prayed. He was called "Ben Kish" because
he knocked (Hikish) on the gates of mercy with his prayers and they opened for him.

This attribute of Mordechai -- the quality of his prayer -- is evident even in his commonly-used
name, "Mordechai." The Gemara (10b) teaches that the name "Mordechai" alludes to "the choicest
of the spices" in the verse, "You shall take for yourself choice spices: Mor Dror..." (Shemos 30:23),
which Targum Onkelus translates as "Meira Dachya" ("pure myrrh"), from which the word
"Mordechai" is derived.

The "Meira Dachya" in the Ketores, the incense offering, served to forge a bond between Hash-m
and the Jewish people. Similarly, Mordechai, through his power of prayer, brought the Jewish
people close to Hash-m. Prayer accomplishes the same thing as the Ketores, as the verse says, "Let
my prayer stand as incense before You" (Tehilim 141:2; see also Kerisus 6b). Mordechai was
vested with the power of the Ketores ("Meira Dachya") to bring the Jewish people close to Hash-
m, and thus he excelled in Tefilah.

This particular attribute of Mordechai was the most suitable one to use in the battle against Haman.
Haman was descended from Amalek, the nation which embodies the power of the Tum'ah of Esav
as represented by his heavenly counterpart, the Satan (RASHI to Sukah 29a, DH Elokeha). The
Gemara in Bava Basra (16a) says that the Satan and the Mal'ach ha'Maves are one and the same.
Accordingly, Amalek, whose heavenly counterpart is the Mal'ach ha'Maves, is the embodiment of
Misah, death, and thus Haman's lineage suited him well for his plan to annihilate the Jewish people.
(Similarly, the Gemara in Chulin (139b) says that Haman's name is hinted to in the verse, "ha'Min
ha'Etz..." (Bereishis 3:11), in which Hash-m rebukes Adam ha'Rishon for eating from the Tree of
Life and bringing death into the world. Moreover, the Midrash compares Haman to the Nachash3

The Gemara in Shabbos (89a) relates that the Mal'ach ha'Maves taught Moshe Rabeinu that
Ketores has the power to stop the devastation of a plague (Magefah) sent by the Mal'ach ha'Maves.
Mordechai was able to prevent Haman from carrying out his plan to destroy the Jewish people
because Mordechai embodied the attribute of the Ketores. He successfully endeared the Jewish
people to Hash-m through his Tefilah and thereby thwarted the plans of Haman.

It is interesting to note that the word "Amalek" appears as an acronym (either as Roshei Teivos,
the first letters of four consecutive words, or as Sofei Teivos, the last letters of four consecutive
words) only once in all of Tanach, in the verse, "Al Mizbechi L'Haktir Ketores" -- "... to ascend

3 Vayikra Rabah 15:9; Esther Rabah, introduction #5), the animal which persuaded Chavah to eat from the Tree of Life and
thereby bring death into the world.

13
upon my altar to burn Ketores" (Shmuel I 2:28)! In addition, the letters of the word "Amalek"
appear as the first letters of four consecutive words in a different order in the verse,
"Zos Asu Kechu Lachem Machtos" (Bamidbar 16:6), which refers to the Ketores offering of
Korach. (SEFER NIFLA'OS MI'TORASECHA by Rav Mordechai Aran)

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

Remember the song that we sang in Hebrew school about the foolish King Achashverosh? How
foolish was he? Was he truly a fool? This question is the subject of a dispute
between Rav and Shmuel, who discuss whether the strategy of having a general party first and an
event for the people of the capital, Shushan, afterwards was an intelligent plan or a foolish
one. Did it make more sense to seek the favor of his far-flung constituency, knowing that the local
populace was always available to him, or should he have first ensured his support at home?

How to judge Achashverosh is an argument that has existed through the ages. Even today,
historians debate whether he was a master tactician or simply a fool. The Greeks against whom he
fought – and often bested in war – succeeded in tarnishing his reputation in a variety of ways.
Their description of him is not very far off from the picture that we get from reading Megillat
Esther – and even more from the Midrashic material based on the megillah – of someone a bit
unstable who was easily swayed by the opinions of his advisors and attendants, as well as ruled
over by the women of his harem.

It should be noted, however, that in the early years of his reign, Achashverosh succeeded in putting
down serious rebellions in Egypt and Babylon, securing his reputation as an astute and intelligent
military tactician. His building initiatives included the cities of Persopolis and Fiura, both of which
were impressive on an international scale for that time. At the same time, it appears that his
spending on these initiatives was so great that he could not raise enough tax money to cover the
projects, which left his treasury bankrupt.

Thus, it is difficult to reach a clear conclusion regarding his personality or his life’s work.

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

14
 The Arrival Of The Guests by Georges Jules Victor Clairin

Explanation of the Megillah

Mark Kerzner writes:5

What does it mean that king Ahashverosh displayed "the riches of his glorious kingdom?" - that
he put on the garments of the High Priest, about which it also says "glory."

Why did Ahashverosh invite the subjects from distant lands first? Some say that it was because he
was clever - the people of his own capital city Shushan he could appease any time. Other says that
he was stupid: he should have invited his closest people first, and in case of rebellion they would
have protected him.

The students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai asked him, "Why were the 'enemies of Israel'
(euphemism for the Jewish people) on the brink of extinction?" He said, "You say the reason."
They answered, "Because they ate at the feast of Ahashverosh." He questioned, "If so, only the
people in Shushan should have been punished." They then asked, "And what is your reason?"
Rabbi Shimon told them, "Because they bowed down to an idol." The students then asked, "If so,
they should not avoid punishment!" He told them, "They did not mean it, and lacked conviction.
So too, God did not mean it and only scared them."

5 https://talmudilluminated.com/megillah/megillah12.html

15
What does it mean, "On the seventh day the king's heart was merry with wine." And before it was
not? - However, this was Shabbat when people relaxed. When the Sages relax, they discuss
knowledge and praise God. But his guests, when relaxed, started discussing which women, Persian
or Midian were the most beautiful. This led the king to tell them that his wife Vashti was from the
nation of Chaldeans and was the most beautiful. They asked to see her, in crown but nothing else,
but she would not come. Why would not she? Because the angel Gavriel came and made her grow
a tail.

Shira Eliaser

Our daf paints the heroes and villains of Esther in larger-than-life brushstrokes — super-saints
and super-villains — with rabbis anachronistically popping up in the king’s palace, commenting
on the misbehavior of the megillah characters and opining about what they would have done had
they been there. One of the many issues that fires their imagination is Queen Vashti, Ahasuerus’
first queen, banished for refusing to dance at one of his lavish blowouts. Was she an undeserving
victim of arbitrary, alcohol-fueled cruelty? Or was she a deserving and righteous woman shunted
aside to make room for our heroine as the new queen?

Alas, poor Vashti, the sages of our page take a hatchet to her character. To begin, they note that,
in their experience, Babylonian and Persian noblewomen are seldom modest or righteous. They
shake their heads over this proverb:

Folks say: He misbehaves with pumpkins and his wife with zucchinis.

Or, as we might say, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. We should expect Vashti
to be no better than Ahasuerus.

To the rabbis, the Persian royal court looks suspiciously like Hollywood: anyone with money,
power and good looks does precisely as they please, and the only problem is getting caught. Vashti,
exiled, perhaps executed, for refusing to dance for her husband, must have deserved her fate. They
gleefully make Vashti the caricature of every pretty Persian girl who ever bullied their daughter.
And even in their extremes of mirth (and, dare I say it, nastiness?) they are not shy about placing
the blame squarely on the Persian men for objectifying their women:

When the Jewish people eat and drink, they begin with talking Torah and words of praise. But
the nations of the world, when they eat and drink, they begin only with talking trash.

So too, at the feast of that wicked man (Ahasuerus) some said: Median women are the loveliest.
Others said: Persian women are the loveliest. Ahasuerus said to them: The vessel that I use
(what a way to describe his wife!) is neither Median nor Persian, but rather Chaldean. Do you
wish to see her? They said to him: Indeed, only she should be naked!

Naked!? Thought you missed that detail in the text? Esther records the king’s command “bring
Vashti the Queen wearing a royal crown”(Esther 1:11) and the rabbis take this text at its literal

16
word — wearing a crown and nothing else! Take that, you trashy Persian prom queen — aren’t
you sorry you called our rabbi’s daughters frumpy? (See Esther Rabbah 5:3 where this bullying of
Jewish women is made explicit.)

Some among the sages cannot even imagine how a beautiful, wealthy and popular daughter of the
ruling class could ever come to grief surrounded by her posse of twittering golden girls and her
rich sugar daddy of a man; they bring in the archangel Gabriel to deliver supernatural comeuppance
to the evil queen:

She was shameless … so what is the reason she did not come (and shake what the good Lord
gave her)?

Said Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina: This teaches that she broke out in leprosy.

A beraita (early teaching) states: Gabriel came and fashioned her a tail.

The Babylonian Talmud is a composition of Jews in exile: Its stories sometimes reflect the casual
humiliations of antisemitism practiced on the sages by their non-Jewish neighbors. Megillah 12, it
seems, tries to even the score in a land where Jewish women and girls may well have been fair
game for harassment, bullying and violence. The Babylonian rabbis gleefully recount tales of the
pockmarked and beastly Vashti to avenge the humiliation of their sisters, wives and daughters in
their adopted hometown. If Babylonian midwives could terrorize their listeners with boasts of
outrageous cruelty to Jewish patients (see Avodah Zarah 26a:7-8), our sages could at least titillate
their listeners with equally outrageous scenes of well-earned comeuppance.

This teaches that the wicked Vashti would take the daughters of Israel, and strip them naked,
and make them work on Shabbat … as it is written: “Ahaseurus remembered Vashti, and what
she had done, and what was decreed against her”(Esther 2:1). For just as she had done (with
the Jewish maids), so it was decreed upon her.

The Sephardic commentator Me’am Loez explains that since Vashti’s antisemitic labor policies
stripped the dignity from the Sabbath Queen (Shabbat 119a), it was only fitting that, on the seventh
day, she was stripped of her own crown.

The Babylonian rabbis’ contemporaries in the land of Israel take a much more sympathetic (or at
least complicated) view of Vashti. Midrash Esther Rabbah, composed in the land of Israel, paints
her as a noble queen, a tragic heroine whose destiny leaves her a martyr to the sins of her
grandfathers. What was this unfortunate lineage? Megillah 10b and Esther Rabbah Petichta
11 both name Vashti as the last descendant of the bloody Nebuchadnedzar of Babylon, destroyer
of Jerusalem, and granddaughter of Belshazzar, the corrupt last king of Babylon, for whom Daniel
read “the writing on the wall” (Daniel 5). As a small child, these rabbis conjecture, Vashti was the
only survivor of the massacre perpetrated by the welcome usurper Darius (Daryavesh) the Mede;
later midrashim describe how the new king saved the granddaughter of his enemy because she was
so pretty and charming, and used her to secure his own legacy by marrying her to one of his most
faithful vassals, a promising young military man named Xerxes (Ahasuerus in Hebrew). Vashti,

17
in the eyes of the Palestinian rabbis, is the only legitimate queen in a palace full of thugs — though
she is also descended from sworn enemies of Israel.

Despite the sins of her ancestors, the Vashti of Midrash Esther Rabbahis noble and politically
savvy. Recognizing her husband's carefully staged drunken act as the military coup that it is — a
plan to shift the ruling power in the kingdom from her shoulders to his — she appeals to the last
corroded fragments of the king’s soul:

She sent and said to him words that touched his heart. She said to him: “If they see that I am
lovely, they will look over ways to have me by assassinating you. And if they see that I am ugly,
you will be shamed on my account." She hinted subtly to him (that he was impugning his own
masculinity), but he did not understand her subtlety; she was pricking him but he was not
pricked.

She sent again and said to him: "When you were only the stable master of my father's house,
you learned to call in naked prostitutes for yourself, and now that you have come into kingship,
you have not changed from your disgusting ways." She hinted subtly to him (that betraying his
lowly origins was a poor way to begin a coup d’etat), but he did not understand her subtlety; she
was pricking him but he was not pricked.

She sent for a last time and said to him: "Even the highest criminals of my father's house were
not judged naked!” (Esther Rabbah 3:14)

Alas, the beautiful and intelligent queen is subject to Isaiah’s curse on the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar
and all his progeny:

“For I will rise up against them, says the Lord of Hosts, and cut off from Babylonia name
and remnant, and offspring, and posterity, says the Lord.” (Isaiah 14:22)

If God has sworn to do away with the last living descendants of this wicked imperialist, Vashti
cannot but fall. This cruel destiny is more than the rabbis of Palestine can bear, so they give the
heretofore virtuous Vashti the chance to stand on her own. Midrash Panim Acherim on Esther
Rabbah describes the newly crowned Ahasuerus toying with the idea of letting those pesky
Hebrews go back to Judea and rebuild their Temple on the barren rock once called Jerusalem.

But Vashti cannot dissociate her own identity from the imperial conquerors who sired her, and she
seals her doom with her own lips, laughing, “How dare you build up what my noble ancestors
worked so hard to destroy?” Now Vashti has at least rightly earned her place as the last descendant
of Nebuchadnezzar who brought death and exile to God’s chosen people: Despite her manifold
virtues and her worthiness to be queen, she herself will suffer both fates.

18
 Anonymous Queen Vashti Refuses to Appear before Ahasuerus 15th century

VASHTI

Emil G. Hirsch and Judah David Eisenstein write:6

Biblical Data

The first wife of Ahasuerus; her disobedience and subsequent punishment furnish the theme for
the introduction to the story of Esther. The name is held to be that of an Elamite goddess.

In Rabbinical Literature

Among the women who ruled were: Jezebel and Athaliah in Israel; and Shemiramot (Semiramis),
wife of Nebuchadnezzar (see Lev. R. xix., end), and Vashti in Gentile kingdoms (Esther R. i. 9).

6 https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14648-vashti

19
Vashti prepared a feast for women in the "royal house," where she served them with sweetmeats
and other delicacies palatable to women; and she selected as the place of the banquet the royal
chamber of Ahasuerus, where she might exhibit the artistic paintings which, according to R. Abin,
women prefer to see to eating fattened birds (Yalḳ., ii., § 1049). Ahasuerus ordered Vashti to
appear nude before him and his guests at the banquet with the queen's crown as her only ornament.
R. Abba b. Kahana says Vashti was no more modest than Ahasuerus. R. Papa quotes a popular
proverb: "He between the old pumpkins, and she between the young ones"; i.e., a faithless husband
makes a faithless wife. According to R. Jose b. Ḥanina, Vashti declined the invitation because she
had become a leper (Meg. 12b; Yalḳ., l.c.). Ahasuerus was "very wroth, and his anger burned in
him" (Esth. i. 12) as the result of the insulting message which Vashti sent him: "Thou art the son
of my father's stableman. My grandfather [Belshazzar] could drink before the thousand [Dan. v.
1]; but that person [Ahasuerus] quickly becomes intoxicated" (Meg. l.c.). Vashti was justly
punished for enslaving young Jewish women and compelling them to work nude on the Sabbath
(ib.).

Bibliography
Wildeboer, Esther, p. 173, Freiburg, 1897.

The Banquet of Ahasuerus and Queen Vashti, panel from Esther and
Ahasuerus' wedding chest, ca 1490, by Jacopo del Sellaio

20
Prof. Yonatan Grossman writes:7

The question of when a certain biblical narrative transpired historically is not necessarily
relevant to comprehending it completely. Thus, for example, Iyov is not anchored in some specific
historical moment, and the narrative and its moral lesson can be understood without knowledge of
the historical context of its occurrence or composition. Its historical situation neither adds to nor
detracts from Iyov's suffering, and it has no effect on the fundamental positions expressed by any
of his companions, nor on God's reaction to these events.[1]

Seemingly, one could imagine that Esther falls into the same category. This is undoubtedly
an "Exile narrative," and it clearly occurs during the period of the Persian Empire, but any attempt
to locate it more precisely on a historical continuum may appear unnecessary. What does it matter
whether these events take place immediately upon the ascent of Persia as the ruling empire, or
sometime later, during the empire's decline? The wickedness of Haman remains the identical either
way; the wisdom and selflessness of Esther are unchanged; the plot will bring a smile to the face
of its readers, regardless.

Indeed, some scholars maintain that Esther is not meant to reflect any historical event that
happened at a specific time; rather, it is a fictional story: "The story narrated in the Megilla is
historically improbable, and several contemporary scholars concur that it should be regarded as a
fictional tale, like other narratives that were popular among the Jews in the Land of Israel and in
the Diaspora during the Persian period and during the Hellenistic period."[2] A less extreme
formulation is proposed by other scholars who regard Esther as a historical novel – i.e., the main
plot of the narrative contains a kernel of genuine historical truth. Indeed, during Achashverosh's
time, a decree was passed to annihilate the Jews, and this decree was rescinded in the wake of
Esther's intervention; however – according to this view – the author elaborated on this historical
core and added details at his own discretion.[3]

The question is not whether the narrative, as it appears in Esther, actually happened or
not,[4] but rather whether a specific historical context represents the background that is crucial to
our understanding of it. In other words: does the historical period in which the narrative is set have
any special significance for our understanding of the narrative and its hidden messages?

7 https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/ketuvim/megillat-esther/timeframe-and-chronology-chapter-1

21
 The narrative opens by noting an historical point when the events take place: "It was in the
days of Achashverosh – he was Achashverosh who ruled from India to Ethiopia, 127 provinces"
(1:1). This introduction does not sound foreign to anyone familiar with Tanakh, although only
four other narratives begin in this way.[5] The setting of the narrative at a specific historical point
establishes a reading consciousness and has a significant influence on the analysis of the events. In
a narrative that makes no mention of any timeframe, the reader tends to ignore the issue of its
historical location (as, for example, in Iyov), while in a narrative that begins by noting its historical
context, it is reasonable that this background influences our understanding of the events or their
significance.

Indeed, it would seem that the historical setting of Esther is of considerable significance as
pertains to the work's hidden messages, and that a fundamental aspect of that message is
profoundly connected to the specific historical period within which the plot is
narrated. 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).[6] In this respect, the narrator plays innocent and
conveys the sense that he is about to tell a story of the Persian Empire – as we noted in our
discussion of the literary framework of the narrative as a whole. As we shall see later on, this is
one of the motifs interwoven throughout: the disparity between the Persian exterior of the narrative
and the Jewish perspective within it.

Any discussion of the historical setting that opens the narrative 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 of
Macedon (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 Flavius.[7]
B. An earlier – and more widely accepted – date identifies Achashverosh as Xerxes I
(486-465 B.C.E.).[8]

This latter view rests upon four major proofs:

22
 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.[9]
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), and also as having a
magnificent palace in Shushan, and 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: "The people of the land
would weaken the hands of the people of Judea, and frightened them off from
building. They hired advisors against them, to frustrate their planning, throughout
the time of Cyrus, King of Persia, and until the reign of Darius, King of Persia. And
during the reign of Achashverosh, at the beginning of his reign, they wrote
accusations against the inhabitants of Judea and Jerusalem. And during the days of
Artaxerxes they wrote…" (Ezra 4:4-7). If, indeed, Achashverosh was Xerxes, then
we have an orderly account of the beginning of the dynasty: Cyrus – Darius –
Xerxes (Achashverosh) – Artaxerxes.[10]

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 unearthing the concealed
meanings of the narrative.

Let us now turn our attention to one fact of extreme importance for our understanding of the
real context of Esther. If Achashverosh is indeed Xerxes, then the narrative transpires about 100
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 acceded 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 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

23
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).

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 consciousness of historical time away from what was going on in the Land of
Israel and towards the events in Persia. But, is this an innocent declaration of intent, 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, whereby the narrative indeed appears to be disconnected from the goings-on there,
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.[11] 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 (as opposed to a mere change
of literary perspective). Esther, narrated from the 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, in 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. The book'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 is no mere literary discrepancy; it hints at a political difference

of opinion, or – as we might call it – an idealistic-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.

24
 As noted, the midrashim of the Sages in the Babylonian Talmud (especially in
Tractate Megilla) contain hidden literary readings of Esther. The tension between the inhabitants
of Shushan and the inhabitants of the Land of Israel, busy building the Second Temple, surfaces
in several different teachings.[12] 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).[13] The use that Ahashverosh made of the Temple vessels
is presented, in this Midrash, as an alternative to their intended use in their original home. In other
words, because the Jews were not going to be redeemed and the Temple was not going to be rebuilt,
the vessels could serve the Persian king at his feasts.[14]

Can we find any hint to this tension within the text itself? Does the author 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.

Paton comments on some literary connections between the palace of Achashverosh and the
Sanctuary and the Temple in Jerusalem.[15] These connections exist both on the architectural
level and on the linguistic level of the description of the feast; the description of the structure of
the royal palace is reminiscent of the structure of the Temple – especially as recorded in the vision
of Yechezkel.[16] 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.[17] 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,
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 which I have prepared"
(I Divrei Ha-yamim 29:19).

It is not clear when this title began to be used for Jerusalem and for the Temple (it is definitely
a later word[18]). However, if the author of Esther was familiar with it as a name for Jerusalem,
it is possible that he sought thereby to hint at the tension discussed above: which is the "bira"?
Which is the royal city – the city of Achashverosh's kingdom, or the city in which the Temple is
located?[19]

25
 To my mind, the situation is quite the opposite. The author of Esther seems to present the
Temple in Jerusalem as an alternative to his description of the royal palace in Shushan. The
unlimited drinking and exaggerated self-aggrandizement with wealth and riches (see further
below) are not noted as an introduction to God's Kingdom, as Laniak argues, but rather as an
antithesis. A sophisticated reader who hears the sounds of the Temple from behind the description
of the royal palace senses, through the author's hints, something of the difference and contrast
between the two edifices.[23]

The relationship between the two readings is quite surprising. The associations do not serve
to deepen the message that arises from the text. In this instance, 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.

Where should the narrative begin?

The focus on the king's feast and on its strong colors is emphasized from another angle, too
– the matter of the timeframe of the narrative; not its historical context (which we have discussed
above), but rather the literary timeline of the plot.

The question we pose as a heading for this section – "Where does the narrative begin?" –
may surprise some readers: surely a narrative should begin at the beginning. However, a plot that
is composed of small units, each drawing the next along, requires a decision that is not always easy
to make: what is the first image with which the narrative should begin, so as to present the plot to
the reader in the most perfect form possible?

To illustrate the difficulty, every reader is invited to think about which point he would choose
with which to start telling the story of his life, or more specifically, the part of his life in the present
that led him to his present workplace or place of residence. Some people would start the story
with their interview, over the summer, with their boss, at which point they were hired. Others
would start with some significant experience during adolescence, which led them to their field of
occupation (from there everything just fell into place…). Another approach would be to start the
story from childhood, where the various aspects of one's personality are formed. There may even
be some people who would choose to start with the story of how their parents met each other, since
their parents are the basis for their world of values and culture. I imagine that readers would agree

26
that, in a certain sense, every story starts from the ultimate "beginning": "In the beginning God
created…" (Bereishit 1:1), but anyone choosing to start his life's story in this way would have few
listeners…

The question may appear to be sophistry, but there are some fateful issues that depend on
it. Similarly, for example, the question as to where the story of Yitzchak's blessings to his
sons (Bereishit 27) begins will significantly affect our judgment of the characters. If we start from
the beginning of chapter 27 ("It was when Yitzchak was old…"), then we are likely to be critical
of Yaakov and of Rivka. How can a son and his mother exploit the weakness of the elderly father
so as to "steal" the blessing meant for the other son?! If we use this as our point of departure we
feel that Yaakov and his mother have violated a moral principle which, in Sefer Vayikra, is given
formal definition: "You shall not place a stumbling-block before the blind, and you shall fear your
God; I am the Lord" (Vayikra 19:14). If, on the other hand, we read the episode of the stolen
blessing as part of the series of narratives – i.e., if we read it against the background of Eisav's sale
of the birthright to Yaakov, and of Rivka's prophecy as to the younger son's superiority in relation
to his elder brother ("The elder shall serve the younger")[24] – then, of course, our moral
perception and judgment will be entirely different.

This question is of fundamental importance in the context of Esther. The plot is built from
small literary units, each of which may be analyzed in its own right, but at the same time each
influences the next and represents its foundation and background. A narrative constructed in such
a way lends this question critical significance.

Indeed, when we examine the narrative from this perspective we discover an interesting
phenomenon. Esther is full of dates, of important landmarks in the plot (Achashverosh's feast;
Queen Esther; the dissemination of Haman's decrees; the dissemination of Mordekhai's letters,
etc.). The highlighting of these dates serves to emphasize the chain of events, each drawing the
next along and influencing it. The chronology, hints the author, is the basis of this sort of narrative,
and it must be read in the proper order.[25]

In any event, this serves to make it easier for us to follow the narrative. The actual plot takes
place during the twelfth year of the reign of Achashverosh: at the beginning of that year (Nissan)
Haman decides to take revenge on Mordekhai and his nation, and he casts the lot ("In the first
month, which is the month of Nissan, in the twelfth year of King Achashverosh, they cast the pur –
that is, the lot – before Haman" – 3:7). Later in that same month he sends dispatches of his wicked
decrees (on the 13th of Nissan – 3:12). A short time later Haman is hanged on the gallows that he
prepared for Mordekhai, and in Sivan of that same year Mordekhai sends his letters, permitting
the Jews to defend themselves ("The king's scribes were called at that time, in the third month –
which is the month of Sivan – on the twenty-third day of the month…" – 8:9). In the last month
of the twelfth year of Achashverosh's reign, in the month of Adar, the battles are waged; the Jews
defend themselves and prevail over those who hate them (chapter 9).

27
 It would have been possible, then, for the Esther narrative to begin in that year (i.e., with the
events recounted in chapter 3). If the reader were unaware of the circumstances of Esther's
presence in the palace, the integrity of the plot would in no way be diminished. On the other hand,
an earlier point could have been chosen as the beginning of the narrative: it may have begun with
the death of Esther's parents and her adoption by Mordekhai, or Achashverosh's ascent to the
throne, or the process of Haman's promotion to his senior position, etc.[26]

What is the significance of choosing to begin the narrative with Achashverosh's feast and the
banishing of Vashti? Why is the feast presented as the beginning of the story?[27] To answer this
question we must clarify which stages and developments the author gains by starting at this
point. In other words – what would the reader be missing if the story began in the twelfth year,
from Haman's rise to power (chapter 3)? Two images would disappear: first, Achashverosh's feast
and the manner in which Vashti was banished (chapter 1); and second, the manner in which Esther
was chosen as the new queen (chapter 2).

The inclusion of the story of Vashti's removal and the selection of Esther within the narrative
serves to expose some of its fundamental principles. The first of these is what the Babylonian
Talmud refers to as "Preceding the affliction with its cure": "'After these things' – Rabba taught:
[This means,] after the Holy One, blessed be He, had created the cure for the affliction. As Reish
Lakish taught: The Holy One does not strike at Israel without first creating their
healing" (Megilla 13b).

The innocent reader (unaware of the continuation of the story) who finishes chapter 2 never
imagines the possibility that Esther's arrival in the royal palace holds the seed of salvation for all
of the Jews. Not only the innocent reader, but also the characters themselves would never dream
of such a scenario. The "neutral" event of Esther's selection assumes its proper significance only
years later (more accurately, five years later), when it becomes clear how Esther's position plays a
decisive role in the development of the plot and in saving her entire nation. When the story
develops in this way, the reader enters a reading experience in which he relinquishes in advance
his full understanding of the significance of every episode, as examined individually. Against his
will, the reader finds himself in perpetual tension with the images that he has not yet encountered,
illuminating anew those with which he is already familiar, and imbuing them with new meaning.

Beyond the molding of the narrative in such a way that the seeds sown in the beginning will
ripen later on and assume an important role in the development of the plot, it seems that attention
should also be paid to the concealed reading that lies behind the description of the feast. It is at
this feast that Achashverosh ascends the literary stage, with the feast revealing something of his
values and culture. In other words, aside from the actual development of the plot (the removal of

28
Vashti and her replacement with Esther), these images serve to form the image of the king in the
narrative.8

[1] Chazal hint to this in their proposition of numerous and varied opinions as to when Iyov lived. This multiplicity of views hints
that we can understand the book and its moral message with no connection to the historical context of its occurrence or its
composition. Whether the narrative occurs during the period of the forefathers or whether the Second Temple period is its backdrop
(or even whether it never actually took place at all, but rather – as the Talmud maintains – is merely a parable), the book's message
remains equally valid and relevant.
[2] Berlin 2001, p. 3. It must be remembered that no record of this story has been found in Persian sources (N.S. Doniach, Purim
or the Feast of Esther, Philadelphia 1933, pp. 9-53; P. Goodman, The Purim Anthology, Philadelphia 1949; Moore 1980, pp. 220-
226. At the same time, from a Persian perspective, the Purim story is not all that extraordinary: it is quite reasonable to assume
that political tensions, like royal decrees disseminated throughout the royal realm, were fairly common. Still, the lack of any sign
of Persian interest in the story is not proof that it never took place.
[3] O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, an Introduction (tr. by P. R. Ackroyd), Oxford 1966 and, following his example, Y.
Kaufman, History of the Israelite Faith, vol. VIII, Tel Aviv 5720, p. 440 [Heb.] ("In its details the narrative is an artistic creation,
but it is based upon a historical event").
[4] To clarify the matter: it is clear to me that the story did take place – if only because Chazal and the great Jewish sages of all
generations treated it as historical fact. What I seek to clarify is the difference between the historical question in and of itself and
the historical question raised from the perspective of the intention of the narrative.
[5] The war of the four kings against the five, and the salvation of Lot (Bereishit 14: "It was in the days of Amrafel…"); the war
of Aram and Israel against Achaz, King of Judea (Yishayahu 7: "It was in the days of Achaz…"); Yirmiyahu (Yirmiyahu 1: "It was
in the days of Yehoyakim, son of Yoshiyahu"); Ruth (Ruth 1: It was in the days when the judges judged…").
[6] Compare, for example, the beginning of Yechezkel: "In the fifth month in the fifth year of the exile of King
Yoyakhin…" (Yechezkel 1:2).
[7] Antiquities of the Jews XI 6,1. This view is adopted, for example, by M. Heltzer, "Introduction to Megillat Esther," The World
of the Bible [Heb], Tel Aviv 1994, p. 216.
[8] Thus, for example, G.H. Cohen, "Introduction to Esther," Da'at Mikra, Jerusalem 5733, pp. 4-6. For an elaboration on this
complex issue see: J. Hoschander, The Book of Esther in Light of History, Philadelphia 1923, pp. 42-80; 125-129; 166-168; 236.
[9] There is an Aramaic inscription in which the king is called ‫( אחשירש‬with an aleph prefix), similar to its appearance
in Esther. Some opinions maintain that the addition of the aleph was meant to ease the difficulty of pronouncing the opening
consonantal combination as it appears in Persian (‫( )חשיארשא‬M. Haltzer, Ezra, The World of the Bible [Heb.] Tel Aviv 1994, p.
150).
[10] The omission of any explicit mention of Cambyses may be explained by the expression "Until the reign of Darius," hinting
that the period of Cambyses is included within this description.
[11] The question of whether the text in Ezra is hinting at Haman's decrees is a complicated one; for some reason, the text there
does not explicitly set out what the accusation was. In any event, since Achashverosh is mentioned, it is reasonable to posit that
the reference is to the same event.
[12] An echo of the discomfort at the excessive and hedonistic conditions of the Jews in Shushan is discerned in the Babylonian
Talmud's attempt to clarify which sins of the Jews made them deserving of such a terrible decree of destruction: "The students
of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai asked him: For what reason were [the enemies of] Israel in that generation deserving of annihilation?
He said to them: You tell me. They said to him: Because they enjoyed the feast of that wicked one" (Megilla 12a). Although Rabbi
Shimon ben Yochai goes on to suggest a different explanation, it is difficult not to sense the critical view arising from the Talmud
toward the Jews of Shushan for the very fact of their living in Persia and their very participation in the king's feast.
[13] See also 19a.
[14] Other midrashim hint at a tension between the two edifices: "'When he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom' – Rabbi
Yossi bar Chanina taught: This teaches that he wore the priestly garments. In this context [Esther] it is written, 'The honor of his
excellent majesty,' while there [in the context of the Temple] it is written, 'For glory and for majesty'" (Megilla 12a). Thus,
according to the Sages, not only the vessels of the Temple were put to "alternative" use, but also the priestly garments. Once the
reader imagines the holy vessels of the Temple being passed around at the king's feast, and the king himself dressed in the priestly
garments, then the next Midrash is obvious:
"Next to him was Karshena, Shetar, Admata, Tarshish" – Rabbi Levi taught: This entire verse recalls the
sacrifices. "Karshena" – The ministering angels said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the universe, have
they offered before You year-old lambs (karim benei shana), as Israel used to offer before You? "Sheter" – Have they
offered before You the two turtle doves (shetei torim)? "Admata" – Have they built an earthen (adama) altar to You?
"Tarshish" – Have they served You, dressed in the priestly garments, as it is written: Beryl, lapis lazuli, and

8
Translated by Kaeren Fish

29
 jasper. "Meres" – have they stirred (mirsu) [sacrificial] blood before You? "Marsena" – Have they stirred meal offerings
(mirsu menachot) before You? "Memukhan" – Have they prepared (hekhinu) a table for You? (Megilla 12b)
Similarly, we find another midrash:
"Ten thousand talents of silver" – Reish Lakish taught: It is clear and known before Him Who spoke and the world came
into existence that Haman was destined to weigh shekels against Israel; therefore [God] ensured that their shekels
preceded his. This is as it is written, "On the first of Adar they proclaim as to shekels and as
to kilayim" (Megilla 13b). The conflict between the feast of this Gentile king and the sacrificial feasting that was held in
the Temple of the King of kings is clearly discernible, and serves as a basis for further midrashim. To summarize, we
may mention the Talmudic exposition on the threat that the king sensed to be facing his kingdom: "The king said to her,
to Queen Esther: What is your request? Up to half of the kingdom – it shall be performed." 'Half of the kingdom' – but
not the entire kingdom, nor something that will block the kingdom. What would that be? The building of
the Temple." (Megilla 15b)
[15] Paton 1908, pp. 138-139
[16] Rabbi Y. Bin-Nun, "Book of Reversals" [Heb.] in Hadassa Hi Esther, Alon Shevut 5757, pp. 47-54.
[17] Which was located inside the city of Shushan, which was the capital of Eilam, and which Darius made into the major
administrative capital of the Persian Empire. On its western side, Darius built a fortified royal city that was called "Shushan the
capital". The source of the name 'bira' (capital) seems to be the Akkadian "birtu," meaning "fort" (see further in Berlin 2001,
pp. 60-61.)
[18] BDB p. 108
[19] It is possible that this is the tension that the Sages hint at in their teaching that Achashverosh ruled over only half of his
ancestors' kingdom (127 provinces rather than 252): 'Seven and twenty and a hundred' – Rabbi Elazar taught in the name of R.
Chanina: Are there not 252 prefectures in the world? David ruled over all of them… Shelomo ruled over all of them… Achav ruled
over all of them… Nevukhadnetzar ruled over all of them… Cyrus ruled over all of them… Darius ruled over all of them…
Achashverosh ruled over half of them! Why only half? R. Huna, representing the position of R. Acha, argued with the Sages. R.
Huna taught in the name of R. Acha: "The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: You divided My Kingship when you said, 'He is
the God who is in Jerusalem.' By your life, I shall divide your kingdom." But the Sages taught: "The Holy One, blessed be He, said
to him: "You divided the structure of My House, by saying: 'Let it be sixty cubits high and sixty cubits wide.' By your life, I shall
divide your kingdom" (Esther Rabba, parasha 1,5). According to these midrashim, the kings of Cyrus's dynasty were punished
and their kingdom was divided because Cyrus caused (even if indirectly) a desecration of God's Kingship in the world. (The
Midrash may seek to create an analogy to the division of Shelomo's kingdom, between Rechavam (the Kingdom of Judea) and
Yeravam (Kingdom of Israel).) The Midrash does not explain why it was specifically during the period of Achashverosh that this
punishment came into effect, such that the kingdom was divided. Perhaps there was a sense that specifically during the period of
Achashverosh's reign the tension between the two kingdoms – that in Jerusalem and that in Shushan – was especially apparent.
[20] As regards the other appearances, there is room to discuss whether these, too, are not perhaps connected – at least indirectly
– to the idea of the Temple in Israel. Thus, for example, the mention of tekhelet in the commandment of fringes on one's
garments (Bamidbar 15:38) is apparently connected to the gold diadem worn by the High Priest, and which was tied with a blue
thread to the turban (Shemot 28:37).
[21] Not surprisingly, this prophecy also mentions the world of the Temple, in indirect contexts. In this respect the mention of
"fine linen" fits in well.
[22] Laniak 1998, p. 58
[23] It is appropriate to conclude this comparison between the two feasts with the comment of the Sages concerning the words,
"When the king's heart was merry with wine": "R. Yitzchak said: Idolaters have no good, as it is written, 'There shall be no good
for the wicked….' How, then, can the text say, 'When the king's heart was merry (lit. "good") with wine?' The answer is: It is not
written 'When the king's heart was merry…' (be-tov lev ha-melekh), but rather 'ke-tov lev ha-melekh' – it was 'sort of' good. But
the goodness of Israel is complete, as it is written: 'They went to their tents joyful and merry of heart (tovei lev) for all the
goodness…' (Esther Rabba, parasha 3,11). The verse that is cited to describe the complete goodness of Israel is from the
celebration of the establishment of the First Temple (I Melakhim 8:66). The reason for Israel's joy at that time was "all the
goodness that God had performed for David, His servant, and for Israel, His nation" (Ibid.).
[24] In accordance with the translation of Onkelos and the interpretation of the Rashbam, ad loc.
[25] However, the multiplicity of dates should also be regarded as an ironic play of innocence: the author presents the kingdom as
a place of law and order, while festivity and wine reign supreme. On the basis of this element Israel Rosenson analyzes several
motifs in Esther, revealing – beneath the formal, legal veneer - profound scorn for the procedures of the Persian kingdom (Y.
Rosenson, Massekhet Megillot, Jerusalem 5762 (second, expanded edition), pp. 184-185).
[26] It is possible that this deliberation stands as the basis of the Tannaitic debate concerning the point in the story from which a
person must hear the reading in order to fulfill his obligation: From which point must a person read the Megilla in order to fulfill
his obligation? Rabbi Meir said: The entire Megilla. Rabbi Yehuda said: From [the words], "A Jewish man…." Rabbi Yossi said:
From [the words], "After these things…"" (Mishna Megilla, chapter 2, Mishna 3). The Gemara brings a fourth opinion: "We
learn: Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said: From "On that night…" (Megilla 19a) [In the Tosefta this opinion is attributed to R. Shimon
ben Lazer – Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Tosefta Megilla, parasha 2, law 5, Lieberman p. 350. In some manuscripts the "son of
Lazer" is omitted; the reference, then, is to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (who is usually referred to simply as "Rabbi Shimon"), and

30
thus it appears in the Jerusalem Talmud (chapter 2, law 3). For further discussion see S. Lieberman, "Tosefta Ke-peshuta," New
York 5722, p. 1150)]. Thus, there are four different opinions as to the point from which a person must start reading (or hearing)
the story in order to fulfill his obligation. According to Rabbi Meir, the entire story must be read. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that
one must at least read from the moment when Mordekhai appears on the literary stage. Rabbi Yossi insists that the reading must
begin at least from Haman's rise to power – i.e., the events of the twelfth year – as we proposed above. And Rabbi Shimon boldly
proposes that even if someone reads only the half of the story where everything was reversed – from "On that night the king could
not sleep…" – he has fulfilled his obligation.
[27] Sandra Berg emphasizes, quite correctly, that feasting is one of the central motifs accompanying the reader throughout the
narrative (Berg 1977, pp. 31-35). It is reasonable to suggest that introducing the story with such a detailed account of the king's
feasts serves to focus the reader's attention on the feasts in the story. In a future shiur we shall return to the various feasts and their
significance.

Queen Vashti refuses to obey King Achashverosh's command to attend a

banquet to display her beauty.

Vashti: Midrash and Aggadah

The first wife of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I, reigned 485–465 B.C.E.), the king of Persia, Vashti is the
featured character in the first episode of the Book of Esther, a Jewish novella composed in the late
Persian/early Hellenistic period (fourth century B.C.E.). King Ahasuerus, in the midst of a banquet
with his noblemen, summons Vashti to appear before the company with her royal crown upon her
head, so that he can show off her beauty. She refuses (her reasons are not given, although the rabbis
speculated that she was summoned to appear naked), and the king, enraged, sends her away
permanently, thus setting in motion the chain of events that will make the Jewish Esther the queen
of Persia.

31
Vashti’s Characterization9

As in many other biblical stories, the narrator does not comment directly on whether the characters’
actions are right or wrong. However, the portrayal of the king and his advisors satirizes their
supposed power and wisdom while casting Vashti in a positive light. It is specified that Ahasuerus
asks for Vashti to appear “when the heart of the king was merry with wine,” hinting at the frivolity
of his request. The royal advisors propose that Vashti must be punished for her disobedience or
else the noblewomen who hear of her refusal will likewise disobey their husbands. Yet the decree
banishing her, intended to affirm that all women must honor their husbands, only serves to further
publicize Vashti’s fame throughout the empire. Ironically, Vashti’s banishment fulfills her very
desire not to appear before the king. Later, the king regrets his decision to banish Vashti but cannot
turn back on his word.

Vashti Compared to Esther

Although sometimes regarded as incidental to the main plot of the Book of Esther, the Vashti story
introduces themes that will become important later in the book, such as the manipulability of King
Ahasuerus and his habit of enacting new laws at the suggestion of others. Esther takes advantage
of the king’s weakness (especially under the influence of wine) as she hosts a wine banquet when
persuading Ahasuerus to save the Jewish people. Further parallels between the two characters
bring Esther into comparison with Vashti. In order to replace her as queen, Esther must be what
Vashti was not: obedient to the king’s wishes. Esther is portrayed as docile and submissive as she
is taken into the king’s harem before being made queen. But in the end, Esther like Vashti, also
defies the king’s law. In a mirror image of Vashti’s disobedience, Esther comes to the king
unbidden, whereas the former queen refused to appear before the king when summoned. Readers
throughout the centuries have found inspiration in both Vashti and Esther as women who
confronted men in power at the risk of their positions and lives.

Tamar Kadari writes:10

According to on midrashic tradition, Vashti was a princess and Ahasuerus was her father’s steward
who acquired regal status by marrying her. Their differences were reflected in Ahasuerus’s
behavior at the banquet, when he summoned Vashti to appear before the men at their revelry. The
Babylonian Rabbis cast Vashti in a negative light. In contrast, their counterparts in Erez Israel
portrayed her in a positive manner. Vashti came to an end when Memucan, one of the seven
eunuchs of King Ahasuerus, counseled the king to depose Vashti. In the midrashic depiction, when

9
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/vashti-bible
10
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/vashti-midrash-and-aggadah

32
Ahasuerus grew sober, he regretted what he had done. He recalled Vashti and her proper behavior,
and he also remembered how he had improperly condemned her.

Vashti’s Identity

The Rabbis state that Vashti was one of the four women who were enthroned, two of whom ruled
over Israel (Jezebel and Athaliah) and two over other peoples (the heathen Semiramis and
Vashti) (Esther Rabbah 3:2).

The midrash conveys that Vashti was the orphaned daughter of Belshazzar; God was her help and
kept her alive and she was wed to the emperor of Persia and Media, even though she was a
Chaldean ( = Babylonian) (Esth. Rabbah 3:5). In the midrashic account of these events, on the
night that Belshazzar was killed, Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Mede were guests at his table.
The candelabrum fell and dashed out Belshazzar’s brains. Darius was crowned in his stead and sat
in Belshazzar’s customary place. The death of Belshazzar caused total pandemonium in the palace.
Some killed, while others engaged in looting. Vashti, Belshazzar’s daughter, was a young girl. She
saw the tumult in the castle and ran among the guests. Thinking that her father was still alive, she
mistakenly sat in Darius’s lap, in the belief that he was her father. Darius took pity on her and
married her to his son Ahasuerus. (Midrash Panim Aherim [ed. Buber], version B, para. 1).

According to another midrashic tradition, Vashti was a princess and Ahasuerus was her father’s
steward, in charge of the royal stables. He acquired regal status by marrying her (Esth.
Rabbah 3:14; BT Megillah 12b). The difference in their stations was reflected in Ahasuerus’s
behavior at the banquet, when he summoned Vashti to appear before the men at their revelry. Esth.
1:10 attests: “on the seventh day, when the king was merry with wine,” from which the Rabbis
understood that the king was intoxicated. The midrash relates that Vashti sent a messenger to her
husband with the message: You were Father’s steward. My father Belshazzar would drink wine in
the measure of one thousand men and would not be inebriated, while you act the fool from the
wine of a single man! She thereby hinted to him that she was the daughter of royalty, while he was
a simple person who had reached his exalted status thanks to her (BT Megillah loc. cit.).

33
 The Banquet of Queen Vashti, from the 1617 Scroll of Esther from Ferrara,
Italy. Institution: National Library of Israel, Jerusalem.

Vashti’s feast is portrayed as a “banquet for women,” which, the Rabbis explain, was different
from the men’s revel. She gave them different types of drinks that women like and served them
different manner of sweets that are favored by women. Esth. 1:9 tells that this banquet was held
“in the royal palace of King Ahasuerus.” One midrash explains that the festivities were conducted
in decorated and adorned rooms that suited women’s tastes, while another tradition says that she
hosted the women in spacious rooms, so that if they wished to use them for licentious behavior,
one would not be ashamed in front of her fellow. Yet a third midrashic tradition tells that she
hosted them in an inner chamber of the king’s, so that if the husband of any of these women wanted
to rebel against the king, his wife would be a hostage in the hands of Ahasuerus and Vashti, thus
forestalling any seditious activity by their spouses (Esth. Rabbah 3:10). According to another
tradition, Vashti hosted them in the royal palace, since it is the way of women to want to know all.
She brought them in to where the king sleeps, and told them: “This is where the king sits, this is
where he eats, this is where he drinks, this is where he sleeps” (Midrash Panim Aherim, version
B, para. 1).

Vashti as Seen by the Babylonian Rabbis

The Babylonian Rabbis tend to cast Vashti in an extremely negative light, as wicked, a Jew-hater,
and wanton. They comment on Esth. 1:9: “In addition, Queen Vashti gave a banquet for women,

34
in the royal palace of King Ahasuerus” that Vashti held her banquet in the royal palace of King
Ahasuerus, a place meant for men, and not in the natural venue for such an event, the harem. They
learn from this that Vashti had licentious intent when she organized her banquet, just like her
husband Ahasuerus (who later summoned her to appear before the men). The Rabbis cite the
immoral intent of each as an example of the popular saying, “He with gourds and his wife with
cucumbers,” in other words, the husband and the wife are alike, and both act in the same
manner (BT Megillah 12a–b).

Esth. 1:10 records:

These Rabbis depict Vashti as a wanton adulteress, leading us to ask why, if this was the case, she
refused to appear at the men’s feast. These Rabbis maintain that Vashti actually wanted to appear
at Ahasuerus’ lewd party. Her plans were upset when leprosy erupted over her entire body, so that
she could not make an appearance before all the guests. According to another tradition, the angel
Gabriel came and fixed a tail to her (BT Megillah loc. cit.). God intervened in various ways in
order to prevent Vashti from heeding Ahasuerus. Thus He directed matters so that Vashti would
be deposed and Esther would reign in her stead.

In the view of the Babylonian Rabbis, Vashti’s punishment was merited (middah ke-neged middah:
“measure for measure”):

This collection of midrashim presents Vashti in a very negative light. The adverse attitude of the
Rabbis in Babylonia to Vashti might possibly have resulted from the fact that Vashti was
Babylonian, and for the Rabbis she represented the local Babylonian women, who were

35
promiscuous and Jew-haters. Emphasizing their negative traits probably aided in erecting barriers
between the Jews living in Babylonia and the local Gentile women.

Vashti as Seen by the Rabbis of Erez Israel

In contrast to the negative depiction of Vashti by the Babylonian Rabbis, their counterparts in Erez
Israel portrayed her in a positive manner. Vashti was a scion of a royal dynasty and deported
herself with the proper honor and nobility. The midrash relates that when Ahasuerus sent
his sarisim (i.e., important ministers, some of whom were eunuchs) to bring Vashti, she sent
emissaries back to him three times, in an attempt to persuade him to withdraw his demand. She
sent him messages to which he would be receptive. She told him:

Vashti in this midrash is blessed with wisdom. She cleverly seeks different ways by which to
persuade Ahasuerus to withdraw his request. First she appeals to logic by setting forth all the
possible scenarios that might result from his demand, all of which are to his disadvantage. Then
she addresses his sense of honor and self-respect, demanding that he act as is fitting for a king.
Finally, she appeals to his compassion, and asks that he not insist upon her appearing naked before
all his guests. By means of her messengers, Vashti hints to her husband that he does not consider
the consequences of his actions and that he wields the scepter only because of his marriage to her;
accordingly, it is not appropriate that he order her to do something against her will. The reader
sees Ahasuerus, in contrast with Vashti, as a ruler who acts rashly and does not think even one
single step ahead. The hints that his wife sends Ahasuerus merely bounce off the thick-skinned
king. Even in his palace his behavior is inappropriate, and he continues to act in a disgraceful
manner, like a steward.

Despite the positive depiction of Vashti by the Erez Israel Rabbis, they find a flaw in her, for which
she is punished by God and is deposed. They assert that Ahasuerus wanted to rebuild the Temple,
but Vashti stayed his hand. She told him:

36
 (Esth. Rabbah loc. cit.; Midrash Panim Aherim [ed. Buber], version B, para. 1).

For the Rabbis of Erez Israel, Vashti apparently represented the Babylonian rule that laid waste to
the Temple. Her replacement by Esther symbolized the reversal that occurs in the Book of Esther
and the hope that the ravagers of the Temple would receive their punishment and the people of
Israel would return to its former glory.

Vashti’s End

As recorded in Esth. 1:12, Ahasuerus is enraged when he hears Vashti’s response: “The king was
greatly incensed, and his fury burned within him.” In the Rabbinic account, God fanned the
flames of Ahasuerus’s anger. He told the angel of fury: “Go and kindle a flame within him,
breathe it into his body and throw sulphur into his oven.” His rage did not subside during all the
years after Vashti’s banishment, until Esther’s appearance. According to one opinion, his anger
was assuaged only when Haman was hanged, as is said in Esth. 7:10: “So they hung Haman on
the gallows which he had put up for Mordecai, and the king’s fury abated.” In the Rabbinic
interpretation, this monarch represents God, the King of kings, who was angered by Haman’s
hatred of the Jews and who directed matters so that Haman would be hanged and his decree
frustrated. Consequently, the hanging of Haman abated God’s fury (Esth. Rabbah 3:15).

Memucan, one of the seven eunuchs of King Ahasuerus, counseled the king to depose Vashti. The
Rabbis observe that Memucan was precipitate in offering advice without being asked, from which
they learn that “A commoner (hedyot, here: fool) leaps first.” Memucan had his own private
interests when he advised the king to remove Vashti. There are three different views as to why
Memucan wished to be revenged upon Vashti. According to one, Vashti would strike him back
and forth on the face with her shoe. In consequence, Memucan says (Esth. 1:16): “Queen Vashti
has committed an offense not only against Your Majesty,” that is, she acted unjustly towards
him, as well, and because of this he wanted a severe punishment to be inflicted upon her. The
second midrashic direction has Memucan wanting to be avenged because Vashti did not invite his
wife to the women’s banquet. And so he says (Esth. 1:17): “For the queen’s behavior will make
all wives despise their husbands.” He speaks in general language and not in a personal tone,
because he did not include himself and his wife in this statement. According to the third position,
Memucan had a daughter and wanted Vashti to be deposed so that his daughter could marry
Ahasuerus. Therefore he says (Esth. 1:19): “And let Your Majesty bestow her royal state upon
another who is more worthy than she,” hinting at his own daughter (Esth. Rabbah 4:6).

37
The Book of Esther is not explicit regarding Vashti’s fate. Esth. 2:1 relates: “Sometime afterward,
when the anger of King Ahasuerus subsided, he thought of Vashti and what she had done and what
had been decreed against her,” but without specifying what had befallen her. Four verses earlier
(1:19), Memucan suggests: “If it please Your Majesty, let a royal edict be issued by you, and let
it be written into the laws of Persia and Media, so that it cannot be abrogated, that Vashti shall
never enter the presence of King Ahasuerus. And let Your Majesty bestow her royal state upon
another who is more worthy than she.” Memucan possibly proposed that the king depose her as
queen and banish her from the palace. A recurring theme in the midrashim is that Vashti was not
merely deposed, but executed.

Thus God fulfilled his prophecy in Isa. 14:22: “and I will wipe out from Babylon name and
remnant, kith and kin” (Midrash Panim Aherim [ed. Buber], version B, para. 1). Memucan’s
suggestion, as presented in the midrash, was to place Vashti’s head on a plate (i.e., to behead her),
and Ahasuerus accepted his proposal (Esth. Rabbah 4:9, 12). Another midrash explains that the
negative effect of wine is like a snakebite, separating life and death. Thus Ahasuerus’ excessive
drinking led to the death of Vashti (Lev. Rabbah 12:1).

The midrash tells us that Ahasuerus acted improperly when he issued the decree (Esth. 1:22):

In the midrashic depiction, when Ahasuerus grew sober, he regretted what he had done. He recalled
Vashti and her proper behavior, and he also remembered how he had improperly condemned
her (Esth. Rabbah 5:2). Another tradition has Ahasuerus wanting his wife when the effects of his
intoxication wore off. He was told: “You killed her!” He asked: “Why?” They replied: “You said
for her to come before you naked and she did not come.” He admitted to them: “I did not act nicely.
And who counseled me to kill her?” They told him: “The seven ministers of Persia and Media.”
He immediately killed them. Consequently, the seven eunuchs are not mentioned again in the Book
of Esther (Midrash Abba Gurion [ed. Buber], version B, beginning of chapter 2).

Bibliography

Amsellem, Wendy. “The Mirror Has Two Faces: An Exploration of Esther and Vashti.” JOFA Journal 4 (2003):
7. See: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/vashti-esther-a-feminist-perspective/

Berlin, Adele. The JPS Bible Commentary: Esther. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2001.

38
Carruthers, Jo. Esther Through the Centuries. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008.

Fox, Michael V. Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans 2001.

Levenson, Jon, D. Esther: A Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox 1997.

Meyers, Carol, General Editor. Women in Scripture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000.

Reimer, Gail Twersky. “Eschewing Esther/Embracing Esther: The Changing Representation of Biblical Heroines.” In Talking
Back: Images of Jewish Women in American Popular Culture, edited by Joyce Antler, 207-19. Hanover, NH: Brandeis
University Press, 1997.

White, Sidnie A. “Esther.” In Women’s Bible Commentary, edited by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe, 124–129.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992; expanded edition, 1998.

White, Sidnie A.. “Esther: A Feminine Model for Jewish Diaspora.” In Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, edited by Peggy
L. Day, 161–177. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Zornberg, Avivah. “Esther—Mere Anarchy Is Loosed upon the World,” in The Murmuring Deep, 108-109. New York:
Schocken, 2011.

The character of Queen Vashti in the Purim story helps us define what it means
to be a hero or a villain.

39
 The Villainy of Vashti

Rebbetzin Tziporah Heller writes:11

As the story of Purim in the Book of Esther begins, King Achashverosh of Persia is holding a
banquet.

On the seventh day of the festivities, the king summons Queen Vashti so that the ministers and
guests can admire her beauty. He commands that she come wearing only the royal crown. Queen
Vashti refuses and is executed.

The job vacancy brings Esther to the palace where she is in position to save the Jewish people
when chief minister Haman hatches his plot for their total annihilation.

Vashti, whose refusal to obey the king sets the action in motion, is an interesting character in this
drama. In fact, in the first analysis she seems like a heroine -- a woman who had too much dignity
to be paraded naked before a drunken horde. There is only one problem. Heroism is not determined
from the outside in, but rather from the inside out. From that perspective, Vashti, as we shall see,
was a villain.

Judaism defines heroism as an act of overcoming an obstacle that stands in the way of a spiritual
objective. Such obstacles are placed before all of us by God, but the level of sacrifice demanded
to overcome each such obstacle can vary widely. In the case of one person, genuine heroism may
go as far as sacrificing one's life for the sake of another. For another person, genuine heroism may
mean sacrificing ego or pride.

Therefore, our question when assessing Vashti's heroism or villainy is: what was she reaching
towards and what stood in the way of her achieving that goal?

In order for us to draw conclusions, let us expand our picture of her.

WHO WAS VASHTI?

Vashti was born to Babylonian royalty. Her grandfather was Nebuchadnezzar, who had destroyed
Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem and driven the Jews into exile. Her father was Belshazzar, the last
in a line of great Babylonian kings whose dramatic death is described in the Book of Daniel.

Belshazzar threw a party and commanded that revelers drink from the holy vessels of the Temple
and then praise "the gods of gold and silver..."

11
https://www.aish.com/h/purim/t/dt/48951881.html

40
At that moment, a large unattached finger appeared and started to write on the wall: "God has
numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end ... your kingdom has been divided
and given to the Medes and Persians."That very night invading hordes of Persians and Medes
attacked; Vashti was the only survivor. But the spirit of conquest that had doomed her father lived
on intact within her.

We learn more about her from the Talmud (in Megillah 12). It tells us Vashti would have Jewish
women brought before her, force them to undress and coerce them into working for her on Shabbat.
The Talmud then asks why did she refuse to come before Achashverosh (not being known as a
modest woman)? The Talmud gives two answers: 1) because tzaraat (a skin ailment resembling
leprosy) erupted on her body; or 2) because she had grown a tail.

If an aggadic statement in the Talmud doesn't make sense literally, the approach that we are meant
to take, according to the Maharal, is to try to grasp the underlying meaning of the allegory. With
this in mind we shall proceed, separating the literal from the allegorical and analyzing the latter
further.

It is almost certain given the social environment of ancient Persia, and the underlying hatred of
Jews that came to the surface soon after this episode, that the first part of the statement is literal.
Yes, she did have Jewish women abducted. Yes, she did want to humiliate them. Yes, she was
clever enough to figure out the most efficient way to bring this about.

The second segment is not literal. No, she did not sacrifice her life by disobeying a despot because
of bad skin. She did not have a terrible case of acne or anything resembling a simple skin disease.
No, she did not reverse evolution and grow a tail. The second part is an allegory that demands
interpretation.

A THREAT TO VASHTI

Jewish women represented a threat to Vashti because they were, in the most profound sense of the
word, unconquerable. By observing Shabbat, they demonstrated that there is a ruler who is beyond
the reach of any monarch. By maintaining their basic modesty they proved that they define
themselves internally rather than superficially. They were untouchable.

It was for that reason that Vashti felt an almost compulsive desire to break them. By doing so she
sealed her own fate. In order to understand how, we can follow the allegory that the Talmud
presents.

The body-soul link is stronger than many of us realize. While we all know that excitement can
raise blood pressure, and some of us can describe the process with great precision, there is far more
involved that we have as yet to explore. In earlier times, God Himself would allow physical
manifestations of an individual's spiritual state to show. The best known of this phenomenon is
tzaraat. It affected the skin, the most external part of the body.

41
The skin hides and protects the inner organs. The word for skin in Hebrew is or. It is written
identically to the word iver, which means blind. The common denominator of the two words
is that they both convey the concept of not being able to see things as they really are.

Tzaraat was an eruption similar to leprosy in that the skin became tough and insensitive. The
difference is that while in leprosy the entire effected area is insensate; in the case of tzaraat there
always remained at least a patch of living skin in the midst of the dead skin. What this symbolized
was that there was always a possibility of redefining oneself.

The Talmud tells that tzaraat came about because of sins involving slander. Slander always has
one motivation -- arrogance.

There is no cheaper high for self-importance addicts (like Vashti) than trivializing and belittling
others. It gives such people the feeling of superiority without any need to actually be superior.
Blindness helps to silence the conscience, because then the victim can't be seen as a fellow human.
Therefore, to slander freely without guilt, it helps to have thick skin and to be spiritually blind.

Vashti had long ago stopped seeing beyond the surface. Her punishment was that she had to face
the fact that she too was not flawless.

In the process of disparaging others, she lost something very precious -- her own humanity. What
she saw when she looked in the mirror was a parody of a human being -- the tail. She saw a
heartless egomaniac.

WHY VASHTI REFUSED THE KING

We can now return to our original question. Why didn't she come when Achashverosh called?

The Talmud (in Midrash Rabba) provides us with the final piece of information that lets us put the
puzzle pieces together. It reveals to us the words that she used when she refused him. "You were
my father's stable boy. You had harlots parade in front of you. Are you going back to where you
came from?"

Her intent was not to build herself up or to preserve her integrity. She was aware of what she had
become, but had neither the will nor the courage to change. She had followed a pattern that had
typified her life from the beginning. Her intent was to cut him down. There was no heroism here.
There was only arrogance.

It is easy for us to fool ourselves. Heroism and egotism come unlabeled. The only key that we have
is truth. Purim is the holiday in which everything was turned about. The inside, the core of truth
was revealed. Falsehood was shaken off. May we be worthy of using this day to discover the part
of ourselves that is genuinely heroic.

42
 Queen Vashti’s Costume Party

Dr. Tamar Kadari12 writes:13

Vashti’s role in Megilat Esther is short and ends with the first chapter of the book. She is presented
as a high-ranking woman who holds a banquet of her own, for the women. Vashti disobeys the
drunken King Ahasuerus when he summons her to appear at his banquet with her roya1 crown
upon her head, so that he can show off her beauty. But by disobeying the king’s order she insults
him in front of all his company, and she is punished by being banished from the palace – and from
the story.

Vashti is a secondary character in the Book of Esther who has to clear the way so that the main
character, Esther, can appear on stage. The cruel and hasty behavior of Ahasuerus towards Vashti
explains things that take place in the continuation of the story. For example: why Esther is afraid
to enter the king’s inner court without having been summoned, or Ahasuerus’s hasty decision to
kill Haman. In rabbinic literature Vashti is presented in various guises. Her character is disguised
differently by Babylonian sources and Israeli sources.

12
The article is part of the entry “Vashti”, written by the author for the Encyclopedia, Jewish Women: A Comprehensive
Historical Encyclopedia, Eds. Paula E. Hyman and Dalia Ofer, Shalvi Publishing Ltd. Jerusalem 2006 (CD-Rom)
13
https://schechter.edu/queen-vashtis-costume
party/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA8ICOBhDmARIsAEGI6o3EEpkQj7vy5AhHWIGeiC0xdzwayxDLP7H26fvPnQiKAMuVXoi2pEoaAo2
NEALw_wcB

43
Vashti As Seen By the Babylonian Rabbis

The Babylonian Rabbis tend to cast Vashti in an extremely negative light, as wicked, a Jew-hater
and wanton. Ravah, a Babylonian rabbi from the fourth generation, comments on Esth. 1:9: “In
addition, Queen Vashti gave a banquet for women, in the royal palace of King Ahasuerus” that
Vashti held her banquet in the royal palace of King Ahasuerus, a place meant for men, and not in
the natural venue for such an event, the harem. He learns from this that Vashti had licentious intent
when she organized her banquet, just like her husband Ahasuerus (who later summoned her to
appear before the men). The Rabbis cite the immoral intent of each as an example of the popular
saying, “He with gourds and his wife with cucumbers,” in other words, the husband and the wife
are alike, and both act in the same manner (BT Megillah 12a–b).

Esth. 1:10 records: “On the seventh day, when the king was merry with wine,” on which Ravah
observes that the seventh day of Ahasuerus’s banquet was also the seventh day of the week, that
is, the Sabbath. When the Israelites eat and drink on the Sabbath, they utter words of Torah and
praises to God. But when the non-Jewish peoples eat and drink on this day, they begin with
indecent talk. And so it was at the banquet of Ahasuerus, where an argument erupted among the
men. Some said: “The Median women are the fairest,” while others claimed: “Persian women are
the fairest.” Ahasuerus replied to them: “The vessel that I use [that is, his wife] is neither Median
nor Persian, but Chaldean (= Babylonian)—do you want to see her?” They told him, “Yes, but
only if she is naked.” This demand is derived from Esth. 1:11: “to bring Queen Vashti before the
king wearing a royal diadem”—wearing only a royal diadem, without any other clothes on her
body (BT Megillah 12b).

These Rabbis depict Vashti as a wanton adulteress, leading us to ask why, if this was the case, she
refused to appear at the men’s feast. These Rabbis maintain that Vashti actually wanted to appear
at Ahasuerus’ lewd party. Her plans were upset when leprosy erupted over her entire body, so that
she could not make an appearance before all the guests. According to another tradition, the angel
Gabriel came and fixed a tail to her (BT Megillah loc. cit.). God intervened in various ways in
order to prevent Vashti from heeding Ahasuerus. Thus He directed matters so that Vashti would
be deposed and Esther would reign in her stead.

In the view of the Babylonian Rabbis, Vashti’s punishment was merited ( midah ke-neged middah
: “measure for measure”): as she did to Jewish women, so it was decreed against her. The wicked
Vashti would bring Jewish women, strip them naked and order them to perform work on the
Sabbath. Consequently, she was punished by being commanded to appear in the nude at the
banquet of Ahasuerus, on a Sabbath day (BT Megillah loc. cit.).

This collection of midrashim presents Vashti in a very negative light. The adverse attitude of the
Rabbis in Babylonia to Vashti might possibly have resulted from the fact that Vashti was
Babylonian, and for the Rabbis she represented the local Babylonian women, that they wanted to
present as promiscuous and Jew-haters (see BT Kiddushin 72a). Emphasizing their negative traits
probably aided in erecting barriers between the Jews living in Babylonia and the local Gentile
women.

44
Vashti As Seen By The Rabbis Of Erez Israel

In contrast to the negative depiction of Vashti by the Babylonian Rabbis, their counterparts in Erez
Israel portrayed her in a positive manner.

Vashti was a scion of a royal dynasty and deported herself with the proper honor and nobility. The
midrash relates that when Ahasuerus sent his important ministers to bring Vashti, she sent
emissaries back to him three times, in an attempt to persuade him to withdraw his demand. She
sent him messages to which he would be receptive. She told him: “If they see me and think me
beautiful, they will want to lie with me, and they will kill you. And if they see me and think me
ugly, you will be disgraced because of me.” She hinted to him, but he did not take the hint; she
aimed her barb at him, but he was not stung. She sent a message to him: “You were my father’s
steward, and you were accustomed to have naked harlots come before you. Now that you have
become king, you have not mended your degraded ways!” She hinted to him, but he did not take
the hint; she aimed her barb at him, but he was not stung. She sent a message to him: “You want
me to come naked—even my father, when he judged litigants in a trial, would not judge them
when they were naked” Esth. Rabbah 3:14).

Vashti in this midrash is blessed with wisdom. She cleverly seeks different ways by which to
persuade Ahasuerus to withdraw his request. First she appeals to logic by setting forth all the
possible scenarios that might result from his demand, all of which are to his disadvantage. Then
she addresses his sense of honor and self-respect, demanding that he act as is fitting for a king.
Finally, she appeals to his compassion, and asks that he not insist upon her appearing naked before
all his guests. By means of her messengers, Vashti hints to her husband that he does not consider
the consequences of his actions and that he wields the scepter only because of his marriage to her;
accordingly, it is not appropriate that he order her to do something against her will. The reader
sees Ahasuerus, in contrast with Vashti, as a ruler who acts rashly and does not think even one
single step ahead. The hints that his wife sends Ahasuerus merely bounce off the thick-skinned
king. Even in his palace his behavior is inappropriate and he continues to act in a disgraceful
manner, like a steward.

Despite the positive depiction of Vashti by the Eretz Israel Rabbis, they find a flaw in her, for
which she is punished by God and is deposed. They assert that Ahasuerus wanted to rebuild the
Temple , but Vashti stayed his hand. She told him: “You wish to rebuild what my forefathers
destroyed?” She was therefore punished by the loss of her crown ( Esth. Rabbah loc. cit.). For the
Rabbis of Eretz Israel, Vashti apparently represented the Babylonian rule that laid waste to the
Temple.

To summarize, Vashti appears in various guises in rabbinic literature. By using her character, the
Rabbis wanted to convey a message and educate their people. The Rabbis in Babylonia wanted to
erect barriers between the Jews living in Babylonia and the local promiscuous Gentile women. The
Rabbis of Ere z Israel used Vashti’s character differently. For them, she was the descendant of
Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian ruler who laid waste to the Temple. Vashti’s replacement by
Esther symbolized the reversal that occurs in the Book of Esther and the hope that the ravagers of

45
the Temple would receive their punishment while the people of Israel would return to its former
glory.

A Purim Teaching for our Time: Malbim’s Proto-Feminist

Commentary on Esther

Don Seeman writes:14

In 1845, Rabbi Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Mikhel Wisser, better known by his acronym and nom
de plume ‘Malbim,’ published his first biblical commentary, on Megillat Esther. Malbim is often
characterized as a conservative commentator who defended traditional rabbinic exegesis and the
sanctity of biblical texts. Yet his underappreciated commentary on Esther also contains the seeds
of a radical political hermeneutic that might even be described as “proto-feminist” because it
explores the political roots and consequences of women’s oppression. We are used to thinking of
Esther as a heroine who saved her people, but Malbim’s analysis goes beyond the role of any
individual person to describe how it was, in his view, that the systematic disempowerment of
women in general helped to create the political conditions for genocide in Megillat Esther. This is

14
https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/a-purim-teaching-for-our-time-malbim%E2%80%99s-proto-feminist-commentary-on-
esther/

46
a shockingly modern sort of analysis for a commentator better known for his fierce opposition to
religious reform in the lands he served as rabbi.

For Malbim, the mise en scene of Esther is Ahasuerus’ meteoric rise to power and the political
intrigue that would have accompanied such an upheaval. He notes, for example, that the biblical
story begins just three years into Ahasuerus’ reign, when he still would have been consolidating
power, and cites a midrash that portrays Ahasuerus as a commoner who seized power.[1] This is
not historical research. Instead, it is a form of biblical interpretation grounded in rabbinic exegesis
and it needs to be appreciated in that vein.

Crucially for his account of gender politics in this book, Malbim adopts a midrash that portrays
Vashti as a daughter of the supplanted royal house, suggesting that her marriage to Ahasuerus
would have been a political matter contributing to the legitimacy of his new regime.[2] This in fact
is the heart of the story that Malbim wishes to tell, because it helps to make sense of the first two
chapters of the book whose proliferation of details about drinking and life in the capital might
otherwise have seemed superfluous. For Malbim, Ahasuerus’ political dependence on his wife sets
up a dynamic of murderous intrigue that reverberates through the book.

Political Prologue: “It’s Good to be the King!”

In his somewhat lengthy prologue to the commentary, Malbim elaborates on two broad theories of
government that would have been very familiar to his nineteenth century readers. In a limited or
constitutional monarchy, he writes, royal power is constrained by law and by a conception of the
common good. Sometimes the king even needs to demonstrate that he has received the consent of
the governed. Not so the absolute or unlimited monarch, who rules by fiat as both lawgiver and
king simultaneously. In Malbim’s account—which he tries to illustrate through close reading of
biblical and rabbinic texts—Ahasuerus seized power from a constitutional monarch but was set on
absolutizing his rule through a series of very intentional stratagems that required him to sideline
or eliminate his wife. Faced by the ancient rabbinic conundrum whether to portray Ahasuerus as a
wise or a foolish king, Malbim decides from the outset to treat him as someone who knows what
he wants and works deliberately to achieve his goals.[3]

This kind of excursus in political philosophy is unusual among rabbinic commentators, but it is
crucial to Malbim’s methodology, lending vital context to the plethora of small details on which
he builds his interpretation. Why, for example, would Scripture devote so much attention to the
lavish parties Ahasuerus held for his servants and subordinates throughout the whole third year of
his reign? Malbim’s answer is that no mere constitutional monarch could have opened the state
coffers so brazenly for his own aggrandizement. Ahasuerus understood that people would be less
likely to object to the precedent he was trying to set if they were included among its early
beneficiaries.[4]

Why specify, furthermore, that Ahasuerus had invited three distinct groups to these parties: the
nobles and princes of Persia, the nobles of the (conquered) provinces and ultimately “all the people
who were present in Shushan the palace, both great and small?”[5] As a commoner who had seized

47
power in a large and centralized empire, Ahasuerus wanted to signal that the traditional Persian
elites (who would have been most likely to challenge the legitimacy of his rule) had no more access
to him than anyone else. Extending invitations to lowly servants conveyed to Ahasuerus’ more
privileged guests that “both great and small are equal before him for all are [merely] his
servants.”[6]

This flattening of the political structure may not have immediately weakened the Persian nobility
but it would have stoked the fires of a fiercely populistic loyalty to the new king among the leaders
of the disenfranchised, non-Persian provinces and the lower Persian classes who had been
systematically excluded from most of the benefits of the constitutional—but colonial and deeply
class conscious—state Ahasuerus had come to dominate.

Malbim certainly gives signs in his commentary of a preference for constitutional monarchy, yet
he implicitly lays the groundwork for a critique of both constitutional and authoritarian regimes.
Ahasuerus’ attention to the provinces and to the servant class of Shushan could not have been
successful unless there were already deep reservoirs of disaffection throughout the empire. Malbim
never says this in so many words, but the pretense of a state governed by law for the common good
may not have appealed so much to the provincial nobles chafing under imperial rule or the
underclass of Shushan whom Ahasuerus had been so careful to flatter. Malbim’s deep personal
intuition for the workings of power in social contexts makes him a profound commentator on a
book devoted to the intrigues of a royal court, but these same intuitions sometimes seem to outstrip
his commitment to critical analysis of the world beyond the text.

Every Man Should be Master in his Own House: On Misogyny and Power

Vashti, we have seen, poses a special problem for Ahasuerus. She is at once the key to his
legitimacy in the eyes of the traditional Persian elites and the most distressing evidence that his
independent power is limited. So, at the end of his long populist campaign, when his heart was
“merry with wine,” Ahasuerus cleverly sends his chamberlains to summon the queen.[7] Sending
his own servants rather than those who normally attend upon her was meant, in Malbim’s reading,
to signal his disrespect. If she answered his call it would be a symbolic victory for him and if she
refused it might present him with an opportunity to move against her. Directly attacking her dignity
as the daughter of a royal house, he also summons her “to show the people and the princes her
beauty,” as if her attractiveness outstripped the importance of her royal person and pedigree.[8] By
demanding that she appear wearing her royal crown, according to one well-known midrash, the
king went so far as to intimate that she should appear before the gaze of his servants, dressed
in nothing else.[9]

Malbim pointedly ignores several popular midrashim that attribute Vashti’s refusal of the king’s
summons to mere vanity because she had developed a skin disease or even (miraculously) grown
a tail.[10] I consider it a scandal of Jewish education that these fanciful midrashim belittling Vashti
are often the only ones taught to children, while more substantive readings like Malbim’s are
ignored. Ever the close reader, Malbim notes that Ahasuerus called for “Vashti the Queen,” putting
her private name first to emphasize that her status was derived from marriage to him while she
responds as “Queen Vashti,” emphasizing that her own rank came first.[11] Read this way, her

48
refusal of the king’s summons constitutes a self-conscious act of political resistance because she
understood what her husband was trying to accomplish at her expense.

Baiting Vashti in this way would have been a dangerous strategy for Ahasuerus because the Persian
nobility was likely to side with her in any serious dispute. Malbim thinks that Ahasuerus still loved
her and did not wish her condemned to death but that his advisor Memucan ultimately prevailed
with the argument that Vashti’s public challenge had to be treated as an offense of the state if
Ahasuerus’ plans for unlimited government were ever to be achieved.[12] Her offense should not,
moreover, be framed in the context of Ahasuerus’ political struggle with the last remaining
representative of the old royal house but as a woman’s rebellion against her husband, thus
implicating every man in the desire to see her put in her place. Ahasuerus’ cabinet would have to
work quickly, because Malbim assumes that both Vashti and the Persian noblewomen with whom
she had feasted had already seen through this subterfuge and might work to subvert it.[13] So they
released a royal edict banning her from the king’s presence almost immediately before following
up with seemingly unrelated letters “to every province according to its writing and to every people
according to their language that every man should be master in his own house and speak according
to the language of his people.”[14]

On the level of political rhetoric, Ahasuerus’ executive order must have seemed a master stroke
because of all that it simultaneously accomplished. Malbim thinks that by emphasizing that the
letters were to be sent in the diverse languages of the polyglot empire, Ahasuerus was once again
stoking popular resentment against the Persian elites who used to demand that all state business be
conducted in Persian.[15]Apparently, “cultural diversity” can be coopted by authoritarian state
power as easily as any other ideology under the right circumstances. More importantly, Ahasuerus’
letter would have distracted people from his naked power grab by disguising it as the utterly
ordinary resentment of a husband whose wife has defied him, guaranteeing the support of other
men who feared the rebellion of their own wives in turn. Could he have found a more potent
strategy for harnessing their resentment? In the 1970’s it began to be said in some quarters that
“the personal is political,” but Ahasuerus’ letters represent the utter suppression of that frame by
insisting that the political is merely personal. Whether or not she was finally executed—as Malbim
assumes—Vashti’s resistance had been nullified.

On Purim and Genocide

One of the extraordinary features of Malbim’s commentary is how little it initially focuses on the
fate of the Jews. For Malbim, that fate rested not just on divine providence but on an exceedingly
subtle reading of contemporary events by social actors holding a wide a variety of different
political aspirations. Ahasuerus had no particular brief against the Jews, according to Malbim, but
was ultimately manipulated by his advisor Haman the Amalekite, who bore Mordekhai a personal
and hereditary grudge. Without mentioning who the targets of his wrath would be, Haman tells the
king that “there is a certain [unnamed] people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in
all the provinces of your kingdom . . . who follow their own laws and do not obey the
king.”[16] Haman convinces Ahasuerus that extermination of the Jews will be welcomed by all the
nations of the empire whose support he has been seeking. Driven by hatred rather than financial

49
gain, Haman even offers to fill the king’s coffers with the Jews’ money rather than keeping it for
himself.

Astoundingly, Ahasuerus turns down Haman’s offer of booty because his own intentions at this
point are merely to “improve his nation by destroying the harmful religion and its vices.”[17] One
may easily perceive here an echo of Malbim’s critique of reformers and state agents in his own
day who claimed to be interested in public morality or “progress” but whose efforts were often
construed by traditionalists as efforts to assimilate or destroy the Jewish people.[18] Be that as it
may, Ahasuerus ultimately accedes to Haman’s request and once more sends letters throughout
the land allowing the Jews to be exterminated.[19] Later, when Esther intervenes with the king on
her people’s behalf yet a third group of letters must be sent, giving the Jews the right to bear arms
in self-defense.[20]

So where does this leave us? A curious Talmudic text suggests that “had it not been for the first
set of letters” in Megillat Esther “no remnant or remainder of the Jews would have
survived.”[21] As Rashi glosses, the “first set of letters” refers to the one that mandated male control
of the household in the first chapter of Esther. The rule that every man should “speak the language
of his own people” is taken to mean that women who marry a man from a different ethnic or
linguistic group than their own must limit themselves to speaking in their husbands’
language.[22] But such a decree was so clearly daft and unenforceable that it cast all of the king’s
subsequent decrees into disrepute.[23] When the letter about exterminating the Jews later arrived,
most people dismissed it as another laughable farce, and this allowed the Jews to mount a
successful defense against the relatively few who did attack them.

Malbim and a few other interpreters have a different reading, whose direct source in rabbinic
literature (if there is one) I have not yet been able to identify. Malbim’s version, which he attributes
without specific citation to “our sages” reads “if it were not for the first set of letters, the second
set could never have been fulfilled.”[24] On this reading, the second set of letters were the ones
permitting the extermination of the Jews, and the meaning is that Haman could never have
conspired to kill the Jews in a constitutional monarchy.[25] The first set of letters disempowering
women paved the way for Ahasuerus to become an absolute monarch and it was only
under those conditions that a genocide of the kind Haman plotted could ever have a chance to
succeed. To put it simply, the murder of Vashti and the suppression of women throughout the
empire paved the way for Haman’s projected Holocaust.

Though this is bound to be provocative, I have referred to Malbim’s commentary on Esther as

proto-feminist for a few reasons. First, because this commentary demonstrates how the systematic
domination of women served broader imperial interests and was also enhanced by blurring the
relation between patriarchal domination of households and despotic domination of the empire.
Under Ahasuerus, women (starting with Vashti) had to be controlled or neutralized so that the
household could serve as a model for the state, even while the state claimed to be modeled on the
structure of households. This sort of mutually reinforcing dynamic or political cosmology is by
now a commonplace of social analysis, but it wasn’t in 1845.[26]

50
Malbim shows, moreover, that the political project of misogyny formed a necessary prelude to
authoritarian rule and genocide. Jews reflecting on Purim ought to reflect as well on the ways in
which the fate of the Jews cannot help but be embedded in larger structures of power that also
determine the fates of other groups, including women and all those other peoples (some of them
also quite vulnerable) who also inhabit our necessarily imperfect political regimes. Though
the Megillah and its commentators certainly assume a transcendent significance to the travails of
Israel, a reader shaped by Malbim’s commentary would also have to conclude that those travails
can only be understood by reference to a much broader canvas of interlocking stories, political
calculations, and tribulations suffered by others. “Without the first set of letters,” Malbim reminds
us, “the second set of letters could never have been fulfilled.”

Concluding Thoughts

Malbim’s interests in the commentary on Esther bear witness more to his thoughtfulness as a
reader than to any explicit political project, and that is why I only referred to his commentary, in
all fairness, as proto-feminist. I do not mean to imply that he would himself have subscribed to
any of the much later developments in feminist thought or practice, including those that seem to
be at issue in contemporary Orthodox Jewish life. Given his attitude toward Reform in his own
day, it would be odd to portray him as a hero of religious reforms in ours. But this is actually one
of the reasons that his commentary on Esther is so profoundly unsettling. He isn’t trying to sell
anything but a better reading, grounded in rabbinic sources, and a more nuanced appreciation for
the dynamics of power. The fact that this leads him to an unprecedented analysis of gender politics
in Scripture tells me that this is a discussion we ought to be having no matter what our stance on
hot-button contemporary issues might be. At the very least, it will make us better students of Torah.

This is not a small thing. Does the fact that Malbim presaged later developments in gender theory
and linked his observations about gender and politics to Scriptural interpretation mean that we can
begin to have non-defensive conversations about these matters in religious settings? That our sons
and daughters might be able to confront the complex realities of power in their own lives as well
as Tanakh rather than focusing almost exclusively on fanciful midrashim about Vashti’s physical
deformities? Or that we might recapture the importance of political philosophy to almost any kind
of intelligible conversation about sacred Scripture? That may be a lot to rest on the back of one
short commentary on a biblical book, but I am hardly deterred. Purim, after all, is a holiday of
miracles.

Malbim learned about the dynamics of power on his own flesh in the decades following the
publication of his commentary on Esther.[27] In 1859 he became chief rabbi of Bucharest in
Romania but was denounced as an enemy of the state because of his fierce opposition to various
reforms and assimilationist policies. Moses Montefiore intervened to save him from being sent to
prison but he was exiled and forced to seek redress from the Turkish government in
Constantinople. He spent the remaining twenty years of his life embroiled in controversies with
reformers and state authorities in a variety of cities across Europe and finally died in 1879 while
traveling to assume a new rabbinical post. A committed traditionalist of deep learning and broad
intellectual horizons, Malbim can be read with profit today not just for the specific positions he
took (these are inextricably tied to his time and circumstances) but for the habits of mind and spirit

51
that writings like his commentary on Esther exemplify. Within a traditional frame, he sought more
complex and contextually coherent understandings of Jewish literature and Jewish life. At a
moment when many are struggling with renewed passion to comprehend the intersection of
different potential forms of oppression (racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny) and also questioning the
forms of political discourse in which more constitutional or more authoritarian trends might come
to the fore of our national life, Malbim should be on the curriculum.

[1] See Esther 1:3; Esther Rabbah 1:4.

[2] See, for example, Esther Rabbah 3:14.

[3] See Megillah 12a.

[4] Malbim on Esther 1:4.

[5] Esther 1: 5.

[6] See Esther 1:3-5.

[7] Esther 1: 10-11.

[8] Esther 1: 11; Esther Rabbah 3: 14.

[9] Esther Rabbah 3: 13-14.

[10] See Megillah 12b.

[11] See Malbim on Esther 1: 9.

[12] Malbim on Esther 1: 16.

[13] See Esther 1:9 and Malbim on Esther 1: 17.

[14] Esther 1: 19-22.

[15] Malbim on Esther 1: 22.

[16] Esther 3: 8.

[17] See Esther 3: 11, in which the king gives Haman the treasure to do with as he sees fit, as well as Malbim’s comment on that
verse.

[18] Malbim would not have been alone in that regard. See for example Barukh Halevy Epstein’s account of rabbinic interactions
with the Jewish reformer, Rabbi Max Lilienthal, in his memoir Mekor Barukh: Zikhronot Me-Ḥayyei Ha-Dor Ha-Kodem Vol.
IV, chs. 43-44 (Vilna: Rom Publishers, 1928), 1850-1927. For an analysis of this and other relevant sources, see Don Seeman and

52
Rebecca Kobrin, “‘Like One of the Whole Men’: Learning, Gender and Autobiography in R. Barukh Epstein’s Mekor
Barukh,” Nashim 2 (1999): 59-64.

[19] Esther 3: 12-14.

[20] Esther 8: 10-14.

[21] Megillah 12b; also see Pesikta Zutrata (Lekah Tov) Esther 1:22.

[22] Rashi on Esther 1: 22. See similarly Hakhmei Zarfat cited on the same verse in Torat Hayyim: Megillat Esther ‘im Perushei
Ha-Rishonim (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 2006), 48. See Esther Rabbah 4: 12 and additional sources cited by Torah
Shelemah Megilat Esther (Jerusalem: Noam Aharon Publishers, 1994), 50n.187.

[23] See Rashi to Megillah 12b s.v. Iggerot Rishonot.

[24] Malbim to Esther 1:22

[25] Ibid.

[26] For a few ethnographic treatments of the relationship between cosmologies of gender and state regimes, see, for
example, Carol Delaney, The Seed and the Soil: Gender and Cosmology in Turkish Village Society (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1991); Sally Cole, Women of the Praia: Work and Lives in a Portuguese Coastal Community (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1991); Rebecca J. Lester, Jesus in our Wombs: Embodying Modernity in a Mexican
Convent (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).

[27] See Yehoshua Horowitz’s entry on Malbim in Encyclopedia Judaica Vol. XI (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing, 1971), 822-23.

53
 DID VASHTI HAVE A TAIL? REFLECTIONS ON
TEACHING MIDRASH AGGADAH
Penina Besdin Kraut writes:15

I am a teacher of Tanach, and midrash is part of my daily experience. Not that I teach midrash as
a subject area, nor that I even quote midrash every time I walk into the classroom,
but midrash certainly plays a central role in my understanding of Tanach and is always an integral
part of any class preparation. To teach Tanach without the benefit of midrash is unthinkable; to
teach midrash without some careful forethought and consideration should be equally untenable.

About a year ago, when my elder daughter was in fourth grade and my son in first, we were
discussing the parsha of the week at the Shabbat table, as is our custom. My son had been

15
https://www.lookstein.org/professional-dev/bible/vashti-tail-reflections-teaching-midrash-aggadah-elementary-day-schools/
Originally appeared in Ten Da’at Vol. 1, No. 2, 1987

54
marvelously well-prepared and was reciting in great detail all that he had learned in class. My
daughter was fidgeting and seemed to be impatient with the lengthy review of the sidrah. She was
able to contain herself for just so long, and then she suddenly burst forth “Yehuda, what are you
talking about? You ‘re making up stories!

That’s not in the chumash! I‘ve learned that chumash already, and what you ‘re saying is not
written there.” Racheli’s indignation was legitimate, and Yehuda’s perplexity just as real, for he
had been telling the story faithfully, as his teacher had told it to him, with every midrash intact!

What we have here is a vivid example of a common discrepancy in what we teach our children.
On the one hand, we teach the integrity of the Torah text and the importance of every single letter
as written; on the other hand, we tell our children stories from the Torah with midrashim of the
Rabbis woven into the narrative so tightly that there is no distinction between the narrative itself
and the insights of our Rabbis. As a result, we invite inevitable confusion. We must distinguish
between what is actually written in the Torah SheBikhtav what is added by the Torah
SheBa’alPeh, so that when our children go to prove their point from the Torah text, they are not
taken aback to find that it simply is not there.

Another aspect of teaching midrashim in elementary school that deserves attention is the process
of selection. There must be a process of choosing which midrash to teach. We cannot and do not
have to share every comment of our Rabbis on a particular issue. As teachers it is always our
responsibility to use educational judgment in what we teach, and I believe that this applies
to midrash as well. If a midrash helps to illustrate a point within the context of the lesson I have
planned, then I will by all means use it. If a midrash delineates a problem or issue around which I
want to build a discussion, then I most certainly would include it. If a midrash fills in gaps in the
narrative that otherwise would be incomprehensible, or if a midrash teaches a Musar
Haskel which can and should be appreciated by my class, then I have a duty to bring it to their
attention. But I am not required to teach every midrash just because it is there. Midrash is a tool
for learning; in elementary school it is not a subject in and of itself.

Rashi, the chumash teacher par excellence, clearly supports the notion of selection in dealing
with midrash. On the phrase “and they heard” in Bereshit 3:8, Rashi states:
“There are many aggadic midrashim and our Sages have already arranged them properly
in Bereshit Rabba and in other midrashic anthologies. I, however, have come only (to establish)
the peshat of the verse, or such aggadot as resolve the language of Scripture in its context.” [1]
The purpose of our teaching midrash may not always be the same as Rashi’s, but whatever we
choose to be the focus of our lesson should be enhanced and further explained by the midrash we
choose to teach. If the midrash does not complement or supplement our intended goal, then like
Rashi, we should not include it in our lesson plans.

55
Another factor to consider when deciding whether to teach a midrash is to consider how that
midrash is likely to be received by our students when we teach it, as well as how it may be
reinterpreted by them a few years hence. Whenever she taught Megillat Esther, my colleague
would teach the midrash that Vashti grew a tail. Unfailingly, whenever I taught Megillat Esther to
graduates of her class (since Purim tends to repeat itself annually, so too does the learning of the
Megillah), one of the first questions I would receive would be a reference to that midrash. In the
younger grades the question would usually reflect all the excitement, incredulity, and enthusiasm
of the younger child to whom the wilder the fantasy the more endearing the notion “Did Vashti
really have a tail, Mrs. Kraut?” (Tell us again, won‘t you?). In the upper grades, especially those
of the preteens, the question invariably would take on a different tone “Did Vashti really have a
tail, Mrs. Kraut?” (Do you truly believe that? Come on, now!).

Student reaction to what we teach cannot be ignored. If there is a danger that we maybe sowing
seeds of cynicism, rebellion, or outright disbelief by a particular midrash, then wouldn‘t it be
preferable not to teach it? I do not mean to suggest that anything difficult or uncomfortable for us
in the teachings of our Rabbis ought to be avoided, but I do believe an honest evaluation should
be made by the teacher if, in fact, teaching this midrash risks more than it adds. Then too, we
should keep in mind that by choosing not to teach a particular midrash on the elementary school
level, one does not decree that it should never, or will never, be learned. By making that choice,
one simply uses educational judgment to suggest that perhaps it would be better handled at another
stage of student development.

The most apparent, yet most neglected factor in selecting midrashim to use in the classroom, is the
decision as to whether one understands the midrash one intends to teach. It should be quite obvious
that you can ‘t teach what you don ‘t comprehend, and yet, I believe, it happens all too often to
teachers when teaching midrashim. For those teachers who address midrash at its face value and
regard its message in its literal sense alone, I suppose this comment bears no meaning, for as long
as they know the translation of every word in the midrash, they consider that they understand it.
For me, both personally and pedagogically, that is an unacceptable and impractical stance,
particularly if one teaches on the junior high school level. For example, how does one tell sixth,
seventh, and eighth graders that the Rabbis say that Vashti grew a tail, and leave it at that? In the
human experience, do people have tails? Can one sincerely expect one’s students to accept the
spontaneous growth of a tail on the Queen of Shushan? Perhaps it was a miracle, for anything is
indeed possible if Hashem so decrees. Certainly true, yet blatant miracles and deviations of nature
are not common experiences and would certainly have been recorded in the text to be preserved
for posterity like the plagues of Egypt or the splitting of the Red Sea had they occurred even at the
time of Esther. I cannot accept the position that the midrash here is filling in for us a revealed
miracle not included in the text.

How then, as a teacher, do I handle this midrash concerning Vashti’s tail? I can simply decide that
since I do not understand this midrash, I will not relate it to my class. To merely present

56
a midrash in order for it to be ridiculed is counterproductive. I have too much respect for the
Rabbis to present them in an outlandishly inexplicable manner, and too much concern for my
precarious preteen students to put them into a position where they must choose between respect
for chazal and their knowledge of what seems impossible and nonsensical within reality. If all I
have to present to them is that the Rabbis say that Vashti grew a tail, then I will choose not to teach
this midrash.

However, I have another alternative. If I can take this midrash and interpret the words in such a
way that an inner meaning emerges which conforms to reason and reveals a hidden truth, and
thereby highlights the purpose of midrash and the wisdom and insight of our Rabbis, then I will
choose to teach and share this midrash with my class. As the Rambam says, “… the sages knew
as clearly as we do the difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of
that which must exist…. [The] sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear… that the words of the
sages contain both an obvious and hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that
seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable.”[2]

In this vein, I have offered the following suggested interpretation to my classes concerning
the midrash of Vashti’s tail. Who has a tail? A horse, a dog, a cat, a cow… in short ,animals have
tails. When Vashti was called to appear before Ahasverosh and his guests, she became so enraged
that she lost all sense of reason and logical thought and grew a tail. She became as irrational as an
animal, and as emotionally caught up in getting back at her attacker as any animal naturally would.

This is my own interpretation of the midrash, and I emphasize to my classes that it is only my
understanding, and therefore they are free to accept or reject it, just as you the reader are free to
do. What is important here is not this particular midrashic interpretation, but rather the approach
to midrash which I am trying to convey. The midrash is never nonsensical, and elementary school
children should never be put into a position where they are likely to draw that conclusion. The
wisdom of our Rabbis is a given fact. It is our job to release that wisdom and offer suggestions to
unlock the parables and allegorical language frequented by the Rabbis. If we are uncomfortable
with that role in principle,[3] or if we are unable to fulfill that role when dealing with a
particular midrash, then let’s acknowledge our shortcoming and admit openly to our class that we
don ‘t comprehend the true intent of the midrash, or let us choose not to deal with that midrash in
class at all. To simply quote the midrash, translate the words, and let the rest of the pieces fall
where they may be to my mind clearly irresponsible and a disservice to our students.16

[1] Translation taken from Nehama Leibowitz, On Teaching Tanakh (Torah Education Network, 1986), p. 39.
[2] See Rambam, “Introduction to Perek Heiek” Isadore Twersky, A Maimonides Reader (New York: Behrman House, Inc.,

16
The above article is dedicated to the memory of my father. Rabbi Morris Besdin, ‫ ע”ה‬who taught me to love Tanach and
appreciate the Midrashim.

57
1972), p. 409.
[3] Ibid., pp. 401-410.

And in response to the above reading….

Further Perils of Taking Midrashim Figuratively -- Vashti's Tail

Jonathan Waxman writes:17

I think that there are midrashim that were intended allegorically. Just as (I think) there are
midrashim that were intended literally. But articles like this demonstrate the perils of this approach.

Vashti had a tail, and that was why she refused to appear before the king. What? That is ridiculous!
A human being does not suddenly develop a tail! How are we, as rational human beings, to make
sense of this?

In the above essay a teacher in a Jewish girls junior high school teacher explains how she deals
with this thorny issue in general, and with this difficult midrash in particular:

However, I have another alternative. If I can take this midrash and interpret the words in such a
way that an inner meaning emerges which conforms to reason and reveals a hidden truth, and
thereby highlights the purpose of midrash and the wisdom and insight of our Rabbis, then I will
choose to teach and share this midrash with my class.

What is this interpretation of the midrash that shows the inner meaning?

In this vein, I have offered the following suggested interpretation to my classes concerning
the midrash of Vashti’s tail. Who has a tail? A horse, a dog, a cat, a cow... in short ,animals
have tails. When Vashti was called to appear before Ahasverosh and his guests, she became so
enraged that she lost all sense of reason and logical thought and grew a tail. She became as
irrational as an animal, and as emotionally caught up in getting back at her attacker as any
animal naturally would.
Snort.

I'll address in a moment the reason for the snort, and how this interpretation has nothing to do with
the midrash. I want to first highlight the next paragraph, which is much to the writer's credit:

This is my own interpretation of the midrash, and I emphasize to my classes that it is only my
understanding, and therefore they are free to accept or reject it, just as you the reader are free
to do. What is important here is not this particular midrashic interpretation, but rather the
approach to midrash which I am trying to convey.

17
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2007/03/further-perils-of-taking-midrashim.html

58
Thus, she realizes that her interpretation is just that, an interpretation, and leaves the possibility of
other interpretation open. Her point is that an allegorical option is open, and this particular example
was just an illustration of how one might so interpret.

The problem with her interpretation is that it is really really bad. It does not conform to the theme
the midrash is trying to convey, as would have been apparent had she looked at the midrash in its
original context, in Megillah 12b: our daf

What is going on here? Achashverosh wanted Vashti to appear before them naked. This was
picked up from the theme of appearing before them to show off her beauty, as well as quite
possibly from:

11 to bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to
:‫ְבֶּכֶתר ַמְלכוּת‬--7‫ ִלְפֵני ַהֶמֶּל‬,‫ַוְשִׁתּי ַהַמְּלָכּה‬-‫יא ְלָהִביא ֶאת‬
show the peoples and the princes her beauty; for she was fair to look
‫טוַֹבת ַמ ְרֶאה ִהיא‬-‫ ִכּי‬,‫ָיְפָיהּ‬-‫ְלַה ְראוֹת ָהַﬠִמּים ְוַהָשּׂ ִרים ֶאת‬.
on.

leharot - to display, as well as from beketer malchut - with her crown, and nothing else.

Agree or disagree with this theme being developed as actual intent of the text, this is the sort of
theme being developed. Thus, the gemara states ‫ ובלבד שתהא ערומה‬. This is cast as middah kineged
middah, especially as this is also a major theme in Chazal, in midrashim, and in the plain text of
the megillah, since the hidden hand of God directs events such that all the evildoers are getting
their just desserts {from French - just deserves) while the righteous prevail. Thus, she is being cast
here as an evildoer, and so the gemara elaborates on what the did wrong in the past. The
specific derasha is made on ‫ואת אשר עשתה ואת אשר נגזר עליה‬, what she had done and was was
decreed upon her, as a reference to middah kineged middah.

Finally, the gemara states:

"Vashti the queen refused" - let us see. She was a prutza! For Master said: both of them (Vashti
and Achashverosh) intended to sin. If so, for what reason did she not come? Rabbi Rossi bar
Chanina said: This teaches that she developed an outbreak of leprosy. In a brayta they teach that
(the angel) Gavriel came and fashioned for her a tail."

59
Compare this which what this teacher wrote in explaining this midrash:

Who has a tail? A horse, a dog, a cat, a cow... in short ,animals have tails. When Vashti was
called to appear before Ahasverosh and his guests, she became so enraged that she lost all sense
of reason and logical thought and grew a tail. She became as irrational as an animal, and as
emotionally caught up in getting back at her attacker as any animal naturally would.

In this account and "explanation" of the midrash, Vashti disliked the king's suggestion and
was offended by it. Her reaction is one of rage. Meanwhile, if the author had simply looked at the
original context, she would have seen that this "explanation" is entirely implausible, for the
introduction emphasised how Vashti liked the idea of displaying herself in a lewd manner. Why
would she then become so "enraged?"

From context, it is clear that the felt ashamed because of some new development which marred
her beauty and made her embarrassed to appear nude in public.

We cannot really fault this teacher, because in many Jewish schools for girls, opening up a gemara
is strongly discouraged. She probably never saw it inside in the gemara, and did not think to look
it up in the original context. And probably would not give the students in her class gemaras to look
at this source inside. Or perhaps she would. I don't know her or her teaching methodology.

In this instance, though, she did not. The result was that she proposed an allegorical explanation
that sounds good (to some people, at least - my reaction was a snort), but which bears no relation
to the intent of Chazal.

A better approach would be to see the original context in which the statement occurs, to see what
theme Chazal are developing there, and to examine what cues they are picking up from the text.

Did they mean it allegorically? Perhaps. Perhaps not. They are deriving all the details
from derashot on the text.

Thus, as Tosafot points out, the derasha for leprosy from Esther 2:1:
‫ ִנְגַזר ָﬠֶליָה‬-‫ ְוֵאת ֲאֶשׁר‬, where the word nigzar occurs here as well as in 2 Chronicles 26, in describing
King Uzziyah who developed leprosy.

I would suggest that the source for developing a tail was at least in part from the earlier phrase,
‫ָﬠָשָׂתה‬-‫ ְוֵאת ֲאֶשׁר‬, which shares the word asah with the statement ‫בא גבריאל ועשה לה זנב‬. Thus, we might
interpret/translate "and that which he (Gavriel) had made for her (the tail)." Why a tail? I have not
as of yet discovered the basis of every detail of the midrash, but fairly regularly they are derived
in some way from a verse in some place.

60
So, did they actually believe it? This teacher subscribes to the view that a miracle would have been
mentioned explicitly in the text had it occurred. Indeed, Ibn Ezra agrees to this. But he argued with
contemporaries who held the opposite. Thus, his contemporaries maintained that Yocheved gave
birth to Moshe at the tender age of 130. If Ibn Ezra's disputants could hold this, perhaps earlier
Chazal could have held this as well.

We need to realize that we might have a very different general worldview than they did back then.
If so, taking what was intended literally (if it was indeed intended literally) and consistently
reinterpreting it as allegory simply because we disagree with it destroys original intent. Chazal, we
believed in sheidim, could well believe (or perhaps they did not) that an angel made Vashti grow
a tail in order to advance the narrative and the hidden agenda of God, to get Esther into the palace.

Further, Chazal live in a world where truth in halacha is derived not explicitly from the verse, but
from applying hermeneutical methods. That some detail is only revealed by a derasha might be
reason for us to doubt it, because truth be told a lot of us are modern day Karaites in attitude.
Chazal might have used derasha for homiletical purpose in case of narrative aggada sometimes,
but it is quite possible that they felt they were revealing true hidden details that were meant to be
exposed via derasha.

If I were to interpret allegorically, which is indeed a possibility, I would focus on theme, as above.
Say it was not something as striking as a tail or leprosy. Say that she had an allergic reaction to the
food at her banquet and developed a skin rash. Say she developed a mole or an unsightly growth
on a place that would normally be covered -- such as where a tail might grow from. Say she had
put on a little bit of weight recently. She thus had no problem conceptually with lewdly displaying
herself, but did not think she would display herself to the best advantage at that time, while
Achashverosh apparently did.

Thus, without adopting the tail or the leprosy entirely literally, we still maintain the effect and
theme Chazal were trying to create.

Now, let us say I disagree with this theme. Or let us say I think Chazal meant it literally, and would
consider such an interpretation as contrary to sechel. What should my reaction be?

Well, it depends who you ask. Some would think, or shout "koifer." Indeed, this "some" includes
some big names, some Rishonim and Acharonim. Think Ran in derashot haRan. Think Alshich.
They hold that midrashim are tradition passed from Sinai (or in this case from Esther), and we may
not divert to the right or the left. (And that there is dispute about what happened? There is dispute
about halacha as well. Perhaps one reflects the true tradition and the other is wrong.)

61
You have others upon whom to rely. For example, Shmuel haNaggid and R' Avraham son of the
Rambam both say that only halacha is from Sinai from God's mouth, but narrative aggada was just
the author of the aggada's personal opinion, and you have the right to argue. This approach, of
course, has its own dangers, but where we diffuse the impact of interpreting the intent of Chazal
as literal, we have opportunity to delve into what they actually meant, without worrying that we
then must set aside our own judgments. Otherwise, if whatever we say was their intent we must
believe, then either we believe what they actually believed or else we change what they say by
appealing to allegory to first transform what they believed into what we believed.

There are perils of offering allegorical interpretations unbound by an examination of original

context and influenced by one's own attitudes. I will end by offering some of my own
"explanations" of the midrash. I will try to make them offensive so that there is no danger of them
being taken seriously. But I want to show that you can come up with any nonsense and read it into
the text, because that is exactly what the human brain is conditioned to do -- make up explanations.

As she wrote:

This is my own interpretation of the midrash, and I emphasize to my classes that it is only my
understanding, and therefore they are free to accept or reject it, just as you the reader are free
to do. What is important here is not this particular midrashic interpretation, but rather the
approach to midrash which I am trying to convey.

So let us see. What has a tail? A monkey has a tail. Vashti was being punished for being "uppity,"
for wanting to expand the role of women. She was being punished for reading the ketubba under
the chuppa at her friend's wedding. Indeed, this is why Vashti made her own party for the women,
and why Achashverosh stressed that the man should be master in his household, underscoring how
Vashti was trying to take control.

Alternatively -- another midrash relates that Chava was created from Adam's tail (not rib as
translation of tzela). That she grew a tail is meant to convey how she was now separating from her
husband, and becoming her own person. But she forgot that her role was to be ezer kenegdo!

Alternatively -- on Rosh haShana, we eat significant foods. We eat a head of lettuce (/sheep/fish),
to show that we should be the rosh and not the zanav. The point here is that this was the cause of
Vashti's downfall, and she would no longer be the head, as queen, but degraded, as the tail.

I can go on. Do any of these really relate to what Chazal intended? My reaction to these three
suggestions above is -- quite properly -- Snort! But they are about on the same level as the author's
suggestion. And this type of fluff and nonsense is what often enough passes for interpretation in
some girls schools. I would trust myself to give an allegorical interpretation in many instances.

62
 But in choosing this particular interpretation, in an article advocating the approach, the author also
demonstrates the perils of taking midrashim figuratively.

Joe in Australia said...

I think another basis for the midrash is that "‫ ֲאַחְשֵׁוֹ֑רושׁ ָזַ֤כר ֶאת־ַוְשִׁתּ ֙י‬i‫ ֲחַ֖מת ַהֶ֣מֶּל‬i‫"ְכֹּ֕שׁ‬, after
Achashverosh's anger was appeased he remembered Vashti. The king wanted to take
her back but there was an obstacle - there was something "‫"ֲאֶשׁר־ ִנְג ַ֖זר ָﬠ ֶ ֽליָה‬, a decree
which was upon her. So if we take "upon her" literally then it was either a skin condition
or something attached to her, leprosy or a tail.

This is why the king's servants suggest that "‫ות ֹטוֹ֥בות ַמ ְר ֶ ֽאה‬±֖‫ ְנָﬠֹ֥רות ְבּתוּ‬i‫ " ְיַבְק֥שׁוּ ַלֶ֛מֶּל‬- that
young virgins of good appearance be brought for the king. Why bother saying that the
king should find someone who is attractive? Well, one explanation is that Vashti had
never been very pretty, and her position was due to her high birth (as we find in another
midrash). Another explanation is the one above: Achashverosh would have taken
Vashti back but she was now phenomenally ugly and therefore unsuitable. Hence the
midrash.

63
 “Vashti’s Tail” Richard Mcabee

Psychological Profiling

Rabbi Ari Kahn writes:18

Prologue:

Working in the barn from the break of dawn was exhausting. Cleaning the barn, sweeping the
refuse, and caring for the horses had become his life. Every muscle in his body reprimanded him:
“There must be a better way. You were made for a better life. You are destined for greatness.”

At that moment he heard a rustling sound from the direction of the palace, and he lifted his eyes
as a ray of light filtered in through the open window, the dust dancing in the sunbeam; again – a
sound drew his attention outside the barn. There, on the balcony of the palace, directly in his line
of vision, stood the most beautiful woman he had ever seen. She was aristocratic, cultured, exuding
wealth and refinement. She was the granddaughter of King Nevuchadnetzar[2], daughter of the
new king. As he peered at her and at the palace, he said out loud for the horses to hear: “One day
she will be mine, one day it will all be mine.” The horses did not seem impressed with his
pronouncement, but the young stable boy was determined: One day this princess –Vashti – as well
as the palace in which she lived and the kingdom over which her family ruled – would be his. His
name was Achashverosh, and he would not be denied.[3]

Flash forward to a few years later: Achashverosh has succeeded. He led a coup, and claimed the
prizes he had vowed to take. He is king, emperor of 127 countries. He has taken up residence in
the palace, and has taken Princess Vashti as his queen. Not surprisingly, though, Vashti loathes
him. Sitting at the long, elegantly laid table, Achashverosh eats hungrily; the uncouth stable boy
has none of the royal refinement into which his wife was born. Sitting at the other end of the table,

18
https://www.ou.org/holidays/a-literary-analysis-of-the-book-of-esther-based-on-midrashic-comments-and-psychological-
profiling/

64
the elegant Queen Vashti fidgets as Achashverosh mauls his food; she has lost her appetite. She
mourns for her country, she mourns her lost family, and she mourns her life.

The Protagonists

The central protagonists of the Megillah we read each Purim are the eponymous Esther and her
cousin Mordechai; the antagonists are the wicked Haman and the powerful but unstable
Achashverosh. Vashti is often an afterthought; she is present only long enough to make way for
Esther to step into the spotlight. Nonetheless, Vashti casts a large shadow and provides insight into
many of the events that unfold.

The union of Achashverosh and Vashti was not one of love, nor was it arranged by both sets of
parents. The regal Vashti was out of reach of the plebian Achashverosh. Only the bloody coup he
led enabled him to take Vashti as a trophy. She was, to him, the symbol of the realization of his
youthful dreams: In the end, he “got the girl,” the house, the kingdom. What he had not anticipated
was the price he would have to pay for his conquests: From the moment he ascended to power, he
lived in constant fear that the next ambitious stable boy – or some other upstart hungry for power
and fame, like himself – was plotting to take from him what he had taken from others.

When we first meet Achashverosh, he is eager to show off his trophies. He opens his home,
displays his wealth. Nouveau richeAchashverosh is desperate to impress.

‫ד‬-‫ ג‬,‫אסתר פרק א‬

( (‫ )ד‬:‫שׁ ְלָמְל֔כוֹ ָﬠָ֣שׂה ִמְשֶׁ֔תּה ְלָכל־ָשׂ ָ֖ריו ַוֲﬠָב ָ֑דיו ֵ֣חיל׀ ָפּ ַ֣רס וָּמַ֗די ַ ֽהַפּ ְרְתּ ִ֛מים ְוָשׂ ֵ֥רי ַהְמִּדי ֖נוֹת ְלָפ ָֽניו‬
֙ ‫ג( ִבְּשׁ ַ֤נת ָשׁלוֹ‬
‫שׁ֙ר ְכּ֣בוֹד ַמְלכוּ֔תוֹ ְוֶ֨את־ ְיָ֔קר ִתְּפֶ֖א ֶרת ְגּדוָּלּ֑תוֹ ָי ִ֣מים ַרִ֔בּים ְשׁמוֹ ִ֥נים וְּמַ֖את ֽיוֹם‬
ֶ ‫ְבַּה ְרֹא֗תוֹ ֶאת־ֹ֨ע‬:

In the third year of his reign, he gave a banquet for all the officials and servants—the
administration of Persia and Media, the nobles and the governors of the provinces in his
service. For no fewer than a hundred and eighty days he displayed the vast riches of his
kingdom and the splendid glory of his majesty.(Esther, 1:3-4)

65
In his first recorded act as king, Achashverosh throws a six-month long party for the people in his
employ, ministers and slaves alike. All were gathered together for 180 days of revelry – but not
out of a sense of social solidarity or shared purpose. What this group had in common was that they
posed a tier-1 threat: These were the people with primary access to the palace. These were the
people who made Achashverosh feel vulnerable, so he opened his home to them as if to say, “Let’s
be friends. I will share my wealth with you willingly; there’s no need for you to take it by force.”
Achashverosh hoped to win the loyalty, if not the love, of his feted guests.

After the long party, a shorter seven-day party was made for all the residents of Shushan.

‫ח‬-‫ ה‬,‫אסתר פרק א‬

( ‫ ְלָכל־ָהָ֣ﬠם ַה ִנְּמְצִאי֩ם ְבּשׁוַּ֨שׁן ַהִבּי ָ֜רה ְלִמ ָ֧גּדוֹל ְוַﬠד־ ָקָ֛טן ִמְשֶׁ֖תּה ִשְׁבַ֣ﬠת‬v‫ה( וִּבְמ֣לוֹאת׀ ַהָיּ ִ֣מים ָהֵ֗אֶלּה ָﬠָ֣שׂה ַהֶ֡מֶּל‬
‫ )ו( ֣חוּר׀ ַכּ ְרַ֣פּס וְּתֵ֗כֶלת ָאחוּ ֙ז ְבַּחְבֵלי־֣בוּץ ְוַא ְרָגָּ֔מן ַﬠל־ְגּ ִ֥ליֵלי ֶ֖כֶסף ְוַﬠ֣מּוֵּדי ֵ֑שׁשׁ ִמ֣טּוֹת׀‬:v‫ָי ִ֑מים ַבֲּחַ֕צר ִגּ ַ֥נּת ִבּיַ֖תן ַה ֶ ֽמֶּל‬
:v‫ )ז( ְוַהְשׁקוֹ֙ת ִבְּכ ֵ֣לי ָזָ֔הב ְוֵכ ִ֖לים ִמֵכּ ִ֣לים שׁוֹ ִ֑נים ְו ֵ֥יין ַמְל֛כוּת ָ֖רב ְכּ ַ֥יד ַה ֶ ֽמֶּל‬:‫ָזָ֣הב ָוֶ֗כֶסף ַ֛ﬠל ִֽרְצַ֥פת ַבַּהט־ָוֵ֖שׁשׁ ְו ַ֥דר ְוֹס ָ ֽח ֶרת‬
‫ ַ֚ﬠל ָכּל־ ַ֣רב ֵבּי֔תוֹ ַלֲﬠ֖שׂוֹת ִכּ ְר֖צוֹן ִאישׁ־ָו ִֽאישׁ‬v‫)ח( ְוַהְשִּׁת ָ֥יּה ַכ ָ֖דּת ֵ֣אין ֹא ֵ֑נס ִכּי־ֵ֣כן׀ ִיַ֣סּד ַהֶ֗מֶּל‬:

At the end of this period, the king gave a banquet for seven days in the court of the king’s palace
garden for all the people who lived in Shushan the capital, from the highest [echelons of society]
to the lowest. [There were hangings of] white cotton and blue wool, tied with cords of fine linen
and purple wool to silver rods and alabaster columns; and there were couches of gold and silver
on a pavement of marble, alabaster, mother-of-pearl, and mosaics. Royal wine was served in
abundance, as befits a king, in golden beakers, beakers of varied design. And the rule for the
drinking was, “No one will be forced!” For the king had given orders to every palace steward
to comply with each man’s wishes. [Esther 1: 5-8]

After another day of drinking and trying to impress the locals, he summons Vashti – to show her
off:

‫ יא‬,‫אסתר פרק א‬

(‫ ְבֶּ֣כֶתר ַמְל֑כוּת ְלַה ְר֨אוֹת ָ ֽהַﬠ ִ֤מּים ְוַהָשּׂ ִרי֙ם ֶאת־ָיְפָ֔יהּ ִֽכּי־טוַֹ֥בת ַמ ְרֶ֖אה ִֽהיא‬v‫יא(ְ֠לָהִביא ֶאת־ַוְשׁ ִ֧תּי ַהַמְּלָ֛כּה ִלְפ ֵ֥ני ַהֶ֖מֶּל‬:

66
…to bring Queen Vashti before the king wearing a royal crown, to display her beauty to the
peoples and the officials; for she was a beautiful woman. (Esther 1:11)

One midrashic tradition reads between the lines, surmising that Vashti was “summoned before the
king wearing only her royal crown.[4]While this reading is tempting, it may be “overkill”: Vashti’s
humiliation was complete merely by virtue of being treated as entertainment for her disgusting
husband and his lackeys.

‫ יב‬,‫אסתר פרק א‬

(‫ ְמֹ֔אד ַוֲחָמ֖תוֹ ָבֲּﬠ ָ֥רה ֽבוֹ‬v֙‫ ֲאֶ֖שׁר ְבּ ַ֣יד ַהָסּ ִרי ִ֑סים ַו ִיְּקֹ֤צף ַה ֶ֙מֶּל‬v‫יב( ַוְתָּמֵ֞אן ַהַמְּלָ֣כּה ַוְשִׁ֗תּי ָלבוֹ֙א ִבְּדַ֣בר ַהֶ֔מֶּל‬:

But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s command … The king was greatly incensed,
and his fury burned within him. (Esther 1:12)

Vashti made her choice: She chose defiance, her last act to preserve her dignity. The text informs
us that while Achashverosh was entertaining his guests and showing off his riches, Vashti also had
guests. At her party, though, there was no grandstanding – only drinking:

‫ ט‬,‫אסתר פרק א‬

(‫ ֲאַחְשֵׁו ֽרוֹשׁ‬v‫ט( ֚גּם ַוְשׁ ִ֣תּי ַהַמְּלָ֔כּה ָﬠְשָׂ֖תה ִמְשֵׁ֣תּה ָנִ֑שׁים ֵ֚בּית ַהַמְּל֔כוּת ֲאֶ֖שׁר ַלֶ֥מֶּל‬:

In addition, Queen Vashti made a mishteh (derived from the word shti’yah, drink) for
women, in the royal palace of King Achashverosh.(Esther 1:9)

Vashti invited the other women who shared her fate, the other “trophies” who had been captured,
kicking and screaming, in the course of the revolution, women who were taken as part of the riches
inherited by Achashverosh’s co-conspirators. All of these women had been humiliated, violated,
taken as spoils of war. Their families had been killed and they alone remained, chattel awarded to
Achashverosh loyalists.

The parties hosted by the king and queen could not have been more different. The men celebrated
their good fortune with laughter and merriment, while the women drank away their sorrow. The

67
name Vashti, another derivative of the word shti’yah, describes the captive queen as “one who
drank.” To make it through the day – and the night – she would anesthetize herself with alcohol.
She was the victim of rape, both of her body and of her soul.

The struggle between the men and women in Shushan was not, as some recent commentators have
suggested, a 2,500-year-old case of feminism. This was a class struggle, in which the newly
powerful took sadistic pleasure in violating the wives and daughters of the former elite.

The women, led by Vashti, drank. When Vashti became defiant, the ministers of the new regime
were terrified of the domino effect her behavior might ignite: If Vashti were allowed to defy the
king, none of the captured wives would treat their new husbands with respect, and the entire house
of cards constructed by the new regime would be threatened.

Achashverosh found himself in a predicament. He had longed for the day that Vashti would be his.
He had longed for the day that the kingdom would be his. Now his closest advisors hinted that
holding on to this wife might loosen his hold on the kingdom. He was forced to choose between
his queen and the loyalty and respect of his ministers and soldiers. Vashti was banished; some say
she was executed,[5]but the text is silent (Esther 1:19). Perhaps Achashverosh was so conflicted
that he did not know what to do.

The profile of Achashverosh that emerges is of a weak personality tormented by the objects of his
own desire. Moreover, there is a fragility about him: He cares far too much what people think
about him, which leaves him subject to manipulation. He tries to please everyone – everyone other
than Vashti, whom he regards as an object, a trophy. For her part, she is emotionally cold to him.
She maintains her distance – and then she is gone. When Achashverosh succumbs to his fears, he
loses the main object of his desire and becomes despondent, isolated, and paranoid.

68
 Vashti’s Pimples
Sarah Rudolph writes:19

Mishenichnas Adar, when Adar begins, we increase many things. Rejoicing, for sure. And
practical preparations for Purim, naturally: we’re choosing costumes and mishloach manot themes
(or non-themes; no judgment here!), we’re planning our seudot, and we’re scheduling our Megilah
readings. And of course, we’re teaching our children the story of Purim.

Too often, we’re teaching them that Vashti disobeyed Achashverosh’s summons because she had
pimples. This detail of the story is so widely taught that I recently saw someone express shock that
her students had been taught other details of the story but not that one, as if it was a major
deficiency in their education. She went on to report that she had quickly moved to correct the
problem. Because of course, every Jew must learn about Vashti’s pimples!

So close, I thought. One more classroom full of young, impressionable children that almost
escaped being told this detail – but alas, they were “saved” from their ignorance.

19
https://www.ou.org/life/inspiration/vashtis-pimples/

69
Why does the spread of this bit of Torah learning get to me so much? Well, for one thing, I have
seen no indication that it is Torah. The text of Megillat Esther offers no explicit reason for Vashti’s
refusal to come to Achashverosh’s party. If we turn to midrash, the Gemara in Megillah
12b mentions two physical anomalies that may have suddenly appeared and held her
back: tzaraat or a tail. I have not found any midrash that mentions “pimples” in this story;
while tzaraat certainly is a skin affliction, I have also never seen any suggestion that it is identical
with acne.

Why, then, are so many teachers so dedicated to telling their students this detail of Vashti’s
complexion, if it’s not in Tanach or in midrash? I can only presume that it arose from an attempt
to make the midrash more relatable. Four-year-olds don’t really know what tzaraat is, but they can
certainly draw a lovely picture of Vashti with pimples to bring home for the fridge.

This, however, is exactly the (second) reason I think it should be abundantly clear that it is a
mistake to teach young children that Vashti had pimples: precisely because they are so relatable.
Virtually every four-year-old who learns that Vashti was too embarrassed to be seen with pimples,
will one day develop some real-life acne. And as if the preteen years weren’t inherently awkward
and embarrassing enough, we have now ensured that long before the first appearance of the first
spot, every Jewish child will be primed to be embarrassed by this entirely natural – and often
unavoidable, at least without expensive and even unpleasant treatments – phenomenon. Every
child growing into adolescence will have learned that those spots are a good reason to be
embarrassed to be seen.

Lest it seem that I am making a mountain out of a pimple, I will share the following remarkably
cringe-worthy anecdote from a friend. Her preschool daughter came one week excited to share
what she had learned about Purim at the Shabbos table – a Shabbos table attended by her three
preteen sisters and two of their preteen friends. The younger sister was showing off a set of Purim
characters she had made at school, and began telling the story by pointing out each one, including
emphasizing the pimples on Vashti’s face. She then began to assign parts to each person at the
table, for a little spontaneous role-playing. In a stroke of relatively good fortune for all involved,
she chose her mother to be Vashti – “because you have pimples on your face” – rather than one of

70
her sisters or their friends. Despite her parents’ attempts to curtail the situation in various ways,
the young stage director kept repeating “you have pimples on your face, so you are not going to
the party.” Because that’s what she had learned. And that’s what her sisters and their friends had
to keep hearing – that “pimples on face” leads to “didn’t go to the party.” And that’s what she
herself would grow up to associate, regardless of any damage control her parents might attempt.
We all know the power of a preschool teacher to shape a child’s perspective!

As the mother in this all too real anecdote pointed out in an email to the school, “Pimples are real
things that many people have, and that these kids will very likely have one day as well. Introducing
such young children to pimples, and presenting them as something that means you do not go to
parties, demonstrates a remarkable lack of common sense.”

I, too, have spoken to teachers and administrators of various early childhood programs multiple
times about this lack of common sense and the potential damage caused by teaching that Vashti
had pimples. Less remarkably, they have agreed with me; after all, it is only common sense. Yet,
year after year it persists: even in schools where the administration has assured me that they would
speak to the teachers and leave out the pimples, I have seen kids coming home the very next year
having learned about it all over again. Many teachers just seem unable to give up on Vashti and
her pimples.

Why is it so hard? This brings us to an issue that is broader and more fundamental to the ways in
which we teach our children the stories of Tanach, and the third reason I believe we should think
twice before teaching even what the Gemara actually does say about why Vashti didn’t want to
go.

Somehow, over the centuries, certain midrashic details have become ingrained in our communal
consciousness to the point that we cannot separate them from the text. How many of us have been
surprised, as we got older and read the pesukim for ourselves, to find that the Torah says nothing
about Avraham smashing his father’s idols or debating with Nimrod? Or to discover that Bat
Pharoh’s Go-Go-Gadget arm is not in the text? These details are so widely taught that they are
assumed to be an integral part of the Torah, even though they are not actually there. And
unfortunately, we have reached a point at which they are often taught automatically, with little or

71
no thought to why the midrash says what it says or how best to convey its message to a particular
audience.

It is the beauty of midrashic tradition that midrashic details are not included explicitly in the text
of Tanach, but are arrived at through a process of questioning and uncovering hints in textual
anomalies. When we remove that process, teaching the midrashic details just like any part of the
Biblical story without considering the distinction and relationship between the two, we risk
destroying an integral piece of our beautiful midrashic heritage.

Why does the Gemara suggest that Vashti had either tzaraat or a tail? The Gemara itself tells us:
because Chazal had determined just above, from the location of Vashti’s party for the women, that
she was as interested in licentiousness as was her husband. It is only because of that
characterization that the Gemara then raises the question: If she shared that interest, why would
she not consent to appear before the king and his party? It could only be because of something
terribly embarrassing – like pimples! – no, like sudden tzaraat or a tail, both of which are much
less typical, and therefore more embarrassing, than pimples.

If we are not teaching our four-year-olds about sexual promiscuity, as I hope we are not, then there
is no real need to follow up with a discussion of what could possibly have overcome that
inclination. We do it because this is one of those details we tend to forget isn’t actually in
the pesukim, so widely has it been taught. I wonder, though, what would happen if we simply told
them “Vashti didn’t want to go.” And maybe the students would then ask, “Why?” And maybe we
would ask them, “Why do you think she would or would not have wanted to?” Young children are
capable of a great deal of deep thought, if we give them a chance. Maybe they will come up with
suggestions that enhance their own understandings of Vashti and of the Purim story. (Remember
that even within midrashic tradition, the tzaraat/tail approach is not the only possibility.) And
maybe we could even steer the conversation to the idea that Hashem orchestrated events so that
Esther would end up in a position to help her people. We may or may not mention the tail, or the
terrible rash all over her body – not because they make good projects, but as Chazal’s suggestions
as to the means by which Hashem orchestrated events.

72
Because ultimately, that is the point. Midrashic tradition exists to uncover the hints and allusions
between the lines and reveal depths of meaning which might not otherwise have been apparent
from the text. In this case, the form of the interpretation is remarkably similar to the content of the
message: delving into questions of Vashti’s character, and why she didn’t want to go, help reveal
indications of hashgacha even though we don’t see Hashem’s presence in the Megillah explicitly.
There is a lot of potential for important learning here, with or without turning to midrash, and we
need to give serious thought to which midrashic details we will choose to teach, at what age, and
for what educational purpose.

Certainly, these questions of chinuch require more thought than simply providing a silly word to
giggle about (“Pimples! Hee hee!”) or an easy embellishment to a project. And certainly, the
thought we put into our teaching of midrash must include accuracy regarding what the midrashim
actually say, as well as forethought as to how a midrash, conveyed in a particular way at a particular
stage of development, will enhance or detract from our children’s growth.

73
 VASHTI: ROME PERSONIFIED

Laura Duhan-Kaplan w r i t e s : 20

Vashti. In the Book of Esther, she’s a dignified character. But in rabbinic midrash (commentary),
she’s an evil villain. Why? Because she’s code for Christian Rome.

SIMPLY A DIGNIFIED ROYAL

20
https://www.sophiastreet.com/2020/03/07/vashti-arch-antisemite/

74
Let’s start with the plain text of Vashti’s story. Achashverosh rules from Persia to Ethiopia,
controlling 127 provinces. He hosts a 180 day feast for the noble men of his kingdom. Then, he
hosts a seven day feast for the common men. The theme? Let the wine flow!

Meanwhile, Queen Vashti hosts a women’s feast in the King’s palace. But the drunken king
requests her presence at his party. So that all the men can see her beauty. He sends a team of seven
messengers to ask her to come in wearing her royal crown. But she declines. Of course! Because
a Queen is not a party escort.

Still, the king gets quite angry. So he asks seven legal experts what to do. What do they advise?
Tell all 127 provinces what happened to the king. Then, ban Vashti from the king’s presence. And
find a worthier Queen.

Of course the advice is ridiculous. Because it embarrasses the king, and gives Vashti what she
wants. Still, the king does it. And Vashti disappears from the story.

MIDRASH’S EVIL QUEEN

The Talmudic rabbis who speak through early midrash, however, see Vashti differently. She is not
a victim of dim-witted experts. Oh no. Instead, she is the Evil Queen.

These rabbis invent her backstory. Achashverosh, they claim, prevented Jews from building a
second Temple. Why? Because his wife Vashti hated Jews. She would order Jewish women to
clean her quarters. On Shabbat, and in the nude. Why? Not just to humiliate them. But also because
she was bisexual.

The women’s feast she hosted in the palace? That was an orgy. She was, however, tempted to
leave it for an even racier opportunity. Her husband’s all-male party. Especially when he asked
her to wear nothing but her crown.

But God chose this moment to intervene. Suddenly, Vashti had an outbreak of psoriasis. Or maybe
she grew a tail. Whatever. She sent a crabby message back to her husband. “Real kings can hold
their liquor. But you don’t know how.” After all, she was the real royal, descended from
Nebuchadnezzar. She anchored her husband’s claim to the throne. But when she reminded him, he
got angry. So, he ordered her execution.

VASHTI AS A SYMBOL OF CHRISTIAN ROME

None of this is in the Book of Esther. So, why do these rabbis vilify Vashti? Why do they make a
dignified character into a villain? Or say her husband opposed the Temple? Surely they know he
reigned 30 years after the second Temple was built!

75
Why? Probably because they are not really talking about Vashti. Or even about Achashverosh.
Instead, they are talking about current events. In their time, c. 5th century. And using Biblical
characters as a secret code. Because, in tense political times, it’s safer to do so. In their time, the
second Temple has been destroyed. And Rome will never support rebuilding it. Because, since
Emperor Constantine the Great, Rome has become Christian.

So, in public, the rabbis speak of Achashverosh. But, privately, they think of Constantine. Out
loud, they speak of Vashti. But, quietly, they hint at the life of Fausta, daughter of Emperor
Maximianus. Fausta married the much-older Constantine to seal his alliance with her father. But
she fell in love with Constantine’s son. They crossed sexual boundaries and became lovers. Fausta
got pregnant. So, her husband Constantine ordered her execution.

The rabbis don’t mean to blame Fausta. They have no evidence she cared about Christianity. But
they use elements of her story to let you know what they think. Roman power has married Christian
theology. And this is a great threat to Jews and Judaism. So great, they can’t even talk openly about
it.

But they dream of change. And the Book of Esther inspires them. It’s a manual for resistance.
Esther uses love, diplomacy, and strength. Maybe, just maybe, one of those tools will help them.

76
 “Vashti Refuses” Richard Mcabee

Vashti’s Banquet The “Other” Megillah

Introduction In truth, Megillat Esther has precious little to say about the ill-fated Vashti. What to
do with this obstreperous wife? In adding flesh to the bare bones of the Vashti saga (and to pave
the way for the virtuous new Jewish queen), the rabbis wove fanciful accounts of the ill-fated first
queen’s materialism, arrogance and vanity. What follows is adapted from rabbinic texts on
Megillat Esther.21

The Invitation: Girls Night Out

21
https://www.wlcj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/vashtis_banquet_study_guide.pdf

77
Vashti sought to emulate her husband’s example, even in the point of exhibiting treasures. She
displayed six storage chambers daily to the women she had invited as guests; and she did not shrink
from dressing herself in the most lavish garments of the high priests. Because the “weak sex” is
subject to sudden attacks of indisposition, the banquet was given in the halls of the palace so that
the women could withdraw quickly to adjoining chambers. The gorgeously ornamented apartments
of the palace were more appealing to feminine tastes than the natural beauty of the royal gardens
because “women would rather sit in a beautifully appointed room and wear grand apparel than eat
sumptuous food.” Nothing interested women more than to become acquainted with the interior
decoration of the palace “for women are curious to know such things.” Vashti gratified their desire,
showing them all of the rooms, describing everything as they viewed it: “This is the dining hall,
this is the wine-room, this is the bed-chamber…”

The Command: Boys Behaving Badly

Esther 1:10: “On the seventh day, when the king was merry with wine, he ordered Mehuman,
Bizzeta, Harbona, Bigta, Abagta, Zetar, and Carcas, the seven eunuchs in attendance on King
Ahasuerus to bring Queen Vashti before the king wearing a royal diadem, to display her beauty to
the people and the officials; for she was a beautiful women. But Queen Vashti refused to come at
the king’s command conveyed by the eunuchs. The king was greatly incensed, and his fury burned
within him…”

The Deconstruction of Vashti or Uppity Women Finish Last

The rabbis were clearly conflicted by Vashti’s behavior. While on the one hand they could not
approve of the king’s humiliating demand, neither could they sanction her open defiance of her
husband, which might inspire other women to assert their independence. The rabbis solve this
problem by condemning Ahasuerus (the non-Jew) as foolish, and by reproaching Vashti, the vixen,
who gets her just deserts.

78
If that was not enough….

The death of Vashti was not undeserved. It was she who had prevented the king from allowing the
Jews to rebuild their Temple. “Will you rebuild a structure,” she said reproachfully, “that my
ancestors destroyed?” How can we rehabilitate this woman who chose loss of power and public
humiliation over material comfort?

Actually, Feminists, Vashti Was The Harvey Weinstein Of Persia

79
Joshua A. Krisch writes:22

If Mordechai and Esther saw what 2018 had done to Purim, I like to think they’d be satisfied. The
day is commemorated across Jewish denominations with celebration, exchanging of gifts,
donations to the poor, and public Megillah readings—just as they requested. King Achashverosh,
perhaps, would be less amused with how history remembered his reign.

But Vashti? She’d be dumbfounded. Because it’s not every day ostensibly progressive folk reclaim
a vicious anti-Semite and serial abuser of women, crowning her a liberated icon.

The truth is that Queen Vashti was a sexual predator who used her position to abuse Jewish women.
She’s no feminist.

Vashti Was The First #MeToo Survivor

And yet, you’ve probably heard the Vashti-feminist theory. It’s a tired trope that haunts the pews
of liberal synagogues each Adar. In this rendition, Vashti was a queen who, even in the ancient
world, had no qualms about putting her husband in his place. When the king asked her to dance
naked at a party she defied him, knowing it could cost her both crown and head.

Hence, Vashti Feminism

But that simple reading ignores an entire corpus of Jewish thought and, indeed, a rich oral history
that describes the details of how our people suffered at Vashti’s hands. The Talmud tells us that
Vashti was known for dancing naked at parties, and was notorious for sexual impropriety; her
reticence to dance before the king was due not to virtue but to her humiliation at having developed
a skin condition.

And Vashti was no champion of women’s rights. She would summon Jewish women, force them
to undress, and demand they work for her on Shabbat. In other words, Queen Vashti used her
unchecked power to sexually harass her female employees.

Sound familiar? If Vashti is a feminist icon, so are Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Matt Lauer.

Now, you may wish to dismiss the Talmud’s account of Vashti’s crimes. But you should trust it.
For starters, the Talmud’s account of Vashti’s sexual crimes reflects a Jewish consensus that
remained unchallenged for two millennia. And you should trust it for the same reason you would
trust any victim of sexual assault who points a finger at a powerful foe; indeed, this is the central
lesson of #MeToo. It’s rotten form to reject a victim’s account out of hand, and something far
worse than mere rotten form for the descendants of those victims to put that powerful foe on a
pedestal.

22
https://forward.com/opinion/395071/vashti-was-the-first-metoo-survivor/

80
The victims are telling us Vashti hurt them. Calling her a feminist is insulting.

To really understand the insult, let’s take Al Franken as an example. Franken resigned from the
Senate in early 2018. On paper, that’s the whole story. Now, we have a rich oral tradition regarding
why he resigned: He abused his position of power to aggressively kiss and lewdly touch several
women. And we culled this tradition, published in newspapers and online, from victims’ accounts.
But there’s no telling whether, two millennia from now, revisionists will ignore media reports —
our culture’s Talmud, if you will — and maintain that Franken never officially did anything wrong.

If that sounds unlikely, consider Vashti. Even after her victims came forward, and even after our
scholarly “journalists” recorded those crimes in the Talmud, some consider her a hero. The
Megillah itself, after all, merely mentions her resignation. Her victims are swept under the rug.

Sure, there’s still creeping doubt. Ask Vashti advocates about her questionable record, and they’ll
respond that the authors of the Talmud slandered Vashti because they saw an assertive Gentile
woman and elected to take her down a peg. But any serious student of the Talmud knows that its
authors had no qualms defending biblical women and Gentiles on principle. Look at how the rabbis
dealt with Potifar’s wife, another assertive Gentile woman in the bible. Potifar’s wife tried to force
herself on Joseph and, when he refused, had him thrown in a dungeon. And yet the rabbis maintain
that she “acted for the sake of heaven.” Or take Rahab, a Gentile prostitute who lived in Jericho
during the first conquest of Israel. The Talmud writes that she repented and married Joshua, and
that eight prophets are descended from her.

The Talmud calls Vashti a predator because she was one.

The valorization of Vashti is especially insulting because it’s not like the Jewish canon lacks
worthy female icons for modern feminist audiences. There’s the warrior prophetess Devorah,
spiritual leader of her generation. There’s Yael and Yehudit, two women who used their guile to
slay Israel’s tormentors. Or the daughters of Tzelofchad, five women who challenged Moses
himself, and won. Heck, there’s Queen Esther, another victim of sexual assault in the Purim story,
but one who found the internal will to carry on and save the Jewish people. And unlike her
predecessor Vashti, Esther not only defied her husband. She actively manipulated him into
executing his prime minister, rescinding a royal decree, and allowing her coreligionists to wage
war against the king’s very subjects.

It’s time to retire the Vashti-Feminist myth. She was a powerful executive who used her throne to
discriminate against minorities and commit sexual assault with impunity.

If there’s one thing #MeToo taught us this Adar, it’s that we have a moral obligation to listen
to victims. And when it comes to Purim, the victims have kept their story straight for two
thousand years.

81
 “Vashti’s Tail” Richard Mcabee

A Persian Burlesque

Amanda Dillon writes:23

The opening chapters of Esther describe how—after months of lavish drinking banquets—the king
sent his eunuchs to fetch his queen, Vashti, that he might display her beauty to the men he had
gathered around him. The carnivalesque atmosphere of the book’s opening is captured in this
painting by Richard McBee—while the grandeur of the king’s court is also hinted at: white cotton

23
https://thevcs.org/banished-vashti/persian-burlesque

82
curtains, marble pillars, porphyry, mother-of-pearl, and coloured stones picked up in the pinks and
blues of the composition.

This unusual and complex interpretation of the Vashti vignette appears to project the King’s
fantasy, for in reality (as the text tells us) Vashti refused to come. A naked Vashti, adorned with
little except her tiered crown, a sparkly belt, and possibly a veil, performs a cabaret-style dance,
for the implied male gaze of the king and his guests. Her intended objectification as described in
the text is here suggested by her representation as an animal with a tail. And she is not just an
animal, but a domesticated one—turned into a pet for the King; harnessed, obedient, and
performing.

Vashti’s tail, clearly evident in this painting, derives from a collection of rabbinic midrashim that
present Vashti in a negative light, implying that she had licentious intent when she organized her
own banquet at the other end of the king’s castle. According to an associated tradition, the angel
Gabriel came and fixed a tail to her (Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 12b). God intervened in various
ways to prevent Vashti from heeding Ahasuerus’s request. Thus God directed matters so that
Vashti would be deposed and Esther would reign in her stead.

The intriguing second figure in the painting—a naked female ‘hiding’ in the shadows on the other
side of the wall—may be interpreted in more than one way. She might be the real Vashti of the
text who refused to come forth and be paraded before the men—rejected, isolated, and cast out;
stripped of royal status for her refusal to obey. Or she could be Esther, the young woman who
would soon be paraded before the king and win his favour.

83
 Illustrative: Demonstrators take part in a student protest for gun control
legislation in front of the White House, February 21, 2018, in Washington

Vashti, the NRA and the ‘Memuchan Move’

Wayne Lapierre doubled down to protect the status quo, in a move reminiscent of how Haman
reframed the queen's refusal

Chaim Marder writes:24

Each year, as I study and teach Megillat Esther, I hear it call out “learn the lessons found here!”
This year, as we listen to it read it in synagogues across the globe, an especially frightening lesson
shouts out at us all. It’s about what I call the Memuchan Move.
What is the Memuchan Move? Let’s pick of the story at its crescendo, in the middle of
Chapter 1.

24
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/vashti-the-nra-and-the-memuchan-move/

84
“On the seventh day,” we are told, “when the king’s heart was good with wine,” Achashverosh
instructs his eunuchs to bring Vashti the Queen to his feast “to display her beauty to the peoples
and the officials, for she was of good appearance.” She refuses[1], and a crisis ensues.

The king has no idea what to do. He calls on his advisers the “ones who know the law,” to
determine “what to do with Queen Vashti.” He wants to know what the law will demand of him,
and what the law will allow him to do. He also seeks advice from the “ones who know the
times.[2]” They are the ones who have a pulse on the moment — who grasp the mood of the
people, what they will support, and what threatens them. They are his pollsters, his social media
savvy people.

What advice might be given to him? Let’s imagine for just a moment that he had an enlightened
group of advisers, who saw this an opportunity for self-reflection, perhaps a sober community
conversation on the way in which women are sexually harassed and abused by some in society. “If
it pleases the king,” they might have said, “you could impress the world with your readiness to
rethink attitudes, and serve as a model for the rest…” But, of course, that is not what happened.
No one gives such a response. It is then that Memuchan steps forward with a very different message
indeed. He advises that the king double-down and come out swinging. In a brilliantly cynical move,
he crafts a different narrative. He turns the personal humiliation of the king into a national crisis
for all men. He warns: “Queen Vashti has committed an offense not only against Your Majesty
but also against all the officials and against all the peoples in all the provinces of King
Achashverosh. For the queen’s behavior will make all wives despise their husbands…“.

In the narrative that Memuchan tells, the issue is not a couple’s spat, nor a royal power struggle,
and certainly not a need to rethink bad behavior. No. the issue is the threat to the very order of life
as they have lived it. If she is allowed to get away with this, the patriarchy crumbles.

85
This is the “Memuchan Move” — the cynical reframing of the narrative to retain the status
quo, and protect privilege and interests along the way.

Vashti is eliminated, the imagined “revolution” is suppressed, and the decree goes out that “every
man shall be the ruler of his home”.

We, who read this story in 2018, most surely appreciate its message for the present.

Evidence of the Memuchan Move being deployed in real time, was given to me no sooner had I
finished teaching this topic (I had titled the class “Vashti, Esther and #MeToo) in my synagogue
last week. I returned to my home and turned on the CNN Town Hall featuring the students and
families of victims of the horrific shooting in Parkland, Florida. Before us on the screen were
grieving teenagers, who stood and spoke with great passion and eloquence about the need for
serious legislation to limit access to dangerous weapons. I felt inspired by their voices, their
strength, their determination to help drive a conversation about the dangers we continue to face if
we don’t take real action on guns.

And then, the following morning, Wayne Lapierre of the NRA stood before CPAC and doubled
down with a dark and frightening talk. He shared a long list of enemies and people identified as
dangers to our way of life. He spoke of the threat of socialism (?) that must be defended against
with determination. He claimed that safety for our children and citizens should be addressed in
ways other than through limits on guns. He repeated his contention that the way to stop a bad man
with a gun was with a good man with a gun.

As I listened to him, it became clear that this was the Memuchan Move in action. In the face of yet
another horrific massacre, he was presenting a radically different, self-preserving narrative of the
moment. He made it clear that, in his worldview, the real threat, the greater threat here was the
assault on Liberty. Protecting the most expansive read and application of the Second Amendment

86
was the only way to protect the freedoms on which the United States was founded. And solve the
public safety crisis in some other way.

Those of us who are not card-carrying members of the NRA should listen well. It’s a mistake to
paint the gun rights world as made up of a bunch of crazies who just love their guns. The narrative
about the second amendment as a matter of assuring our Liberty runs deep. Some use it cynically,
but I would venture to say that many, many people hold this view deeply.

The decision is between these two narratives. The fight for real, impactful legislation to restrict
the proliferation of weapons is premised on believing that the duty to protect life[3] far outweighs
a fear (real or cynically contrived) that freedom and liberty are at risk, and tyranny awaits. The
demand for “common sense” gun control laws is based on this understanding of the moment: that
the battle to be fought now is 2018’s battle against the epidemic of senseless death at the end of a
gun barrel, not the 1776 battle against King George.

Once more, Memuchan is here, misdirecting. He is reframing the narrative in a most sinister way,
protecting the status quo at all costs. Don’t let his narrative dominate and paralyze this country
from doing what it must to address the gun violence in all its forms.

Remembering Amalek

One final note. I listened with great emotion to the words of parents who spoke during the White
House listening session. How could one not choke up when a father shares that he’ll need to go to
King David Cemetery if he wants to visit his daughter? As he described the way his daughter was
killed — shot nine times, defenseless, on the third floor of the school building- the verses in the
Torah about the way Amalek attacked the Israelites rose in my mind: “how he came upon you on
the way, and cut down the ones trailing behind…” the ones exposed and defenseless. G-d declared,
then and there, that there was a battle to be fought against Amalek. And that battle wasn’t to be
won in a moment in one action, it was ongoing, midor dor.

87
We have heard many legislators claim that instituting this or that new weapons restriction is
unlikely to bring an end to the violence, or even keep most weapons out of the hands of dangerous
people. That doesn’t matter. This is something that happens step by step. Although I’ve warned
here of the danger of the Memuchan Move, the Amalek in this moment is the gun violence itself.
We are duty bound to fight that Amalek battle, for as long as it takes; midor dor. For the sake of
the children, and for the sake of us all.

[1] One approach in the Talmud (see Megillah 11b-12b) and elsewhere is to read this as a power struggle between the insecure

Achashverosh and his queen who, according to Tradition, is the daughter of the last Babylonian king, through whom he has risen

to power. Beyond that, the Talmud sees this as an ugly display of sexual depravity and harassment, as it was demanded of her that

she appear naked before the Feast. The sexual abuse of women will only intensify as we enter chapter 2, when young women are

accosted, eventually forced to sleep with the king, and then remain forever prisoners in his harem…

[2] Some read this as referring to astrologers. I suggest here a different interpretation.

[3] Jewish law makes it clear that we are forbidden to provide weapons to anyone who have any reason to fear might use them to

harm others. See Rambam, Laws of Homicide and Protection of Life 12:12-14. The Torah also demands that we remove all dangers

to others from our homes and the public spaces as well. More broadly, the primary obligation to ensure the wellbeing of citizenry-

the bulk of parshat mishpatim– was the essence of the covenant at Sinai.

88
 Ernest Normand, ‘Vashti Deposed,’ 1890

Who Were You Really, Vashti?

Evil tyrant, proto-feminist, or blank slate onto whom we project our fears and
desires

MARJORIE INGALL writes:25

In the Jewish Day School I attended as a child, Vashti was a bad lady, an authority-flouting sexpot
who loved to dance naked at parties. She might have also had a tail.

As a purple-mascara-wearing teenage authority-flouter, I learned that Vashti was in fact a proto-

Steinem, an attractive woman reclaiming her body and refusing to bend to a man’s dehumanizing
performative demands.

So which is it?

The actual text of the Book of Esther doesn’t offer much help. Vashti shows up only for a couple
of verses in Chapter 1, and psychologically speaking, she’s a cipher. I’ll paraphrase the entirety of
her role (read it line-by-line in both English and Hebrew here, if you wish) so you can see for
yourself:

25
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/who-were-you-really-vashti

89
King Ahasuerus threw a fabulous party in his garden court. There were marble pillars and gorgeous
wall hangings on silver rods with fine linen and purple wool cords, and there were gold and silver
couches, and the floor was inlaid with shells and onyx marble. There were drinks in golden goblets,
and every goblet had a different design. Royal wine flowed in abundance. Meanwhile,
Queen Vashti was having a feast for the women in the palace. The king asked his seven
chamberlains to bring Queen Vashti before him, wearing the royal crown, to show her beauty to
the people and ministers, for she was indeed a fox.

But Queen Vashti refused to appear. The king grew furious; his anger burned within him. He
conferred with his wise men, as was his wont, asking them, “By law, what should be done with
Queen Vashti for failing to obey the order of King Ahasuerus?” One advisor said, “It is not against
the king alone that the queen has sinned, but against all the ministers and all the nations in all the
provinces in all the kingdom, because word of the queen’s deed will reach all the other women
and it will make their husbands contemptable in their eyes. The women will say, ‘King Ahasuerus
commanded that Queen Vashti be brought before him, yet she did not come!’ And the aristocracy
will talk, and there will arise much contempt and anger. So, if it please the King, let there be issued
a royal edict saying that Queen Vashti may never again appear before King Ahasuerus, and let the
King confer her queendom upon another woman who is better than she. And the King’s
proclamation will be heard throughout the kingdom, and all women will respect their husbands,
from the important people to the not-important people.”

That’s it. That’s all we get from the Book of Esther.

But Talmudic commentary expands upon the text, interpreting the narrative. Some commentary
seems very invested in demonizing the non-Jewish Vashti, to contrast her with the perfection of
her Jewish successor. Some declares that Vashti, a shiksa, actually SUPER DUPER LOVED to
dance naked, and the only reason she didn’t want to do it this time was that she had leprosy. Or
suddenly grew a penis. Or was too busy oppressing her Jewish female slaves.

This very week, the Forward ran an op-ed not at all hyperbolically titled “Actually,
Feminists, Vashti Was the Harvey Weinstein of Persia,” which wagged a finger at “ostensibly
progressive folk” wrongheadedly celebrating “a vicious anti-Semite and serial abuser of women,
crowning her a liberated icon.” This interpretation of Vashti, the piece claimed, “ignores an entire
corpus of Jewish thought and, indeed, a rich oral history” concluding “The truth is that
Queen Vashti was a sexual predator who used her position to abuse Jewish women.” Truth!

90
 Elizabeth Cady Stanton, c. 1880, age 65

As a kid studying with super-Orthodox rabbis, I was never quite clear on the difference between
truth and story, Torah and Talmud, documented history and passed-along folklore. Today, I’m
comfortable viewing the act of interpretation as an ongoing process. In 1895, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, a First Wave feminist, wrote in her Women’s Bible, “King Ahasuerus was but a
forerunner of the more modern lawmaker, who seeks the same end of male rulership, by making
the wife and all property the possession of the husband.” Pretty resonant in today’s era of battles
over women’s bodies and autonomy, no? To me, that interpretation works better with the actual
text than the Vashti-grew-a-tail one, but who could argue that Stanton didn’t have her own
interpretive agenda?

Stanton also commented, “Probably Vashti had had previous knowledge of the condition of the
king when his heart was merry with wine…Vashti is conspicuous as the first woman recorded
whose self-respect and courage enabled her to act contrary to the will of her husband.” Sounds
great, but check out that “probably.” It’s supposition. And Stanton’s applauding Vashti’s actions
as “womanliness assert[ing] itself and begin[ning] to revolt and to throw off the yoke
of sensualism and of tyranny,” younger feminists may be brought up short. Who today would
equate sensualism–“the persistent or excessive pursuit of sensual pleasures”–with tyranny? Nice
slut-shaming, Liz! (And while we’re talking about problematic faves, don’t get me started on
Stanton’s views on race.)

Our culture, experiences, and worldview invariably inform our reading, And our writing,
too: Vashti didn’t get any lines in the Book of Esther; generations of female commenters didn’t
get to weigh in on classic texts. Vashti can serve as a perfect canvas for all kinds of beliefs,
prejudices and wishes. Which is fine. Filling the world with a wide variety of stories, and being
willing to re-examine classic ones, makes the world more interesting. And ultimately, we can hope,
more just.

91
 Muriel Wilson (who in 1904 refused a marriage proposal from Winston Churchill) as
Vashti at the Duchess of Devonshire’s Diamond Jubilee Costume Ball, 1897

Vashti: Prude or Proud Proto-feminist?

A black Civil War era poet celebrates the beautiful woman who said no to the King

Frances Ellen Watkins Harper

She leaned her head upon her hand

And heard the King's decree --
"My lords are feasting in my halls;
Bid Vashti come to me.

"I've shown the treasures of my house,

My costly jewels rare,
But with the glory of her eyes
No rubies can compare.

"Adorn'd and crown'd I'd have her come,

With all her queenly grace,
And, 'mid my lords and mighty men,
Unveil her lovely face.

92
"Each gem that sparkles in my crown,
Or glitters on my throne,
Grows poor and pale when she appears,
My beautiful, my own!"

Frances Ellen Watkins Harper (1825-1911)

All waiting stood the chamberlains

To hear the Queen's reply.
They saw her cheek grow deathly pale,
But light flash'd to her eye:

"Go, tell the King," she proudly said,

"That I am Persia's Queen,
And by his crowds of merry men
I never will be seen.

"I'll take the crown from off my head

And tread it 'neath my feet,
Before their rude and careless gaze
My shrinking eyes shall meet.

93
"A queen unveil'd before the crowd! --
Upon each lip my name! --
Why, Persia's women all would blush
And weep for Vashti's shame!

"Go back!" she cried, and waved her hand,

And grief was in her eye:
"Go, tell the King," she sadly said,
"That I would rather die."

They brought her message to the King;

Dark flash'd his angry eye;
'Twas as the lightning ere the storm
Hath swept in fury by.

Then bitterly outspoke the King,

Through purple lips of wrath --
"What shall be done to her who dares
To cross your monarch's path?"

Then spake his wily counsellors --

"O King of this fair land!
From distant Ind to Ethiop,
All bow to thy command.

"But if, before thy servants' eyes,

This thing they plainly see,
That Vashti doth not heed thy will
Nor yield herself to thee,

"The women, restive 'neath our rule,

Would learn to scorn our name,
And from her deed to us would come
Reproach and burning shame.

"Then, gracious King, sign with thy hand

This stern but just decree,
That Vashti lay aside her crown,
Thy Queen no more to be."

She heard again the King's command,

And left her high estate;
Strong in her earnest womanhood,
She calmly met her fate,

94
And left the palace of the King,
Proud of her spotless name --
A woman who could bend to grief,
But would not bow to shame.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech in Congress today is not the first time Jews have
tangled with Persians, nor is he the first leader to have attempted to impress by entertaining
lavishly and displaying his wife’s feminine charms.

The Book of Esther – the Megillah read on Purim – trumps the current antics. Then at least, a
change of queens was needed for the Jews to be saved.

The Megillah begins with the inebriated King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) summoning his wife Vashti to
a banquet to display herself to male dignitaries, topping “a hundred and fourscore” days of
festivities.

Harper’s king summons her “adorned and crowned,” but while the Megillah has her summoned
“with the crown royal, to show the peoples and the princes her beauty.” The Babylonian
Talmud (BT Megillah 12b) interprets this as meaning she should wear only the crown and be
otherwise naked. The poet might not have been familiar with this tradition, or else she modestly
ignored it.

The Megillah simply states that she refused. The poem on the other hand gives her emotions and
fighting words – to paraphrase: No way. I’m not going to show myself to a bunch of drunks.

Vashti is not afraid to lose her job as queen by refusing to subject herself to the possibility of sexual
humiliation. Her justification: Appearing before the men would destroy her own reputation and
bring disgrace upon all Persian women.

Some Jewish feminists and religious scholars applaud her for this defense of modesty. Other
commentators postulate that she vain and refused, possibly because she had gained weight, or had
been stricken with leprosy, or had grown a tail.

In the poem, Vashti leaves the palace, saddened by her husband’s boorish behavior but proud of
her own virtue.

Poet and novelist Frances Ellen Watkins Harper was born in 1825 to free African-American
parents in Baltimore. She supported abolition, temperance and women’s suffrage.

Harper knew her Scriptures: The phrase “ with the glory of her eyes / No rubies can compare” is a
reference to Proverbs 31:10 – “A woman of valor who can find? for her price is far above rubies.”
This follows a series of Proverbs about strong drink (e.g. in verse 4: “it is not for kings to drink
wine: nor for princes to say: Where is strong drink”) and is the beginning of an acrostic about
good wives that many Jewish husbands recite on Friday night.

95